Practice Areas

Legal News

Library

Case Results of Breit Drescher & Imprevento, P.C.

PLEASE NOTE: All case results listed on our website have either been published previously by various entities unrelated to Breit, Drescher & Imprevento, P.C. or have been prepared by us for dissemination to visitors to our website. The results obtained in specific cases depend on a variety of factors. It is generally impossible to know all factors that have influenced a specific result or an accumulation of specific results. Each legal matter consists of circumstances that are peculiar or unique to the specific case. The result obtained under one set of circumstances cannot be a predictor of the result likely to be obtained in a case that necessarily involves different circumstances. You should draw no conclusions about your particular legal matter from reading these accounts.

Below are representative settlements and verdicts pursued and won by Breit Drescher & Imprevento, P.C.. After failing to reach satisfactory financial settlements, these clients came to us seeking justice and fair compensation. We got them justice, and if youve been involved in a case of: Accidents Caused by Trucks or Tractor Trailers,Medical Malpractice,Serious Injuries,Dangerous Prescription Drugs,Product Liability Injuries,Defective Medical Devices,Wrongful Death,Car Accident Injuries,Motorcycle Accident Injuries and Fatalities, we can get justice for you as well.

Contact us for a consultation today.

Medical Malpractice

• $750,000 - Chiropractor settles suit, pays patient $750,000

  Awarded: $750,000

Serious Injuries

• $20,000,000 - $20 million award for severely burned boy stands

  Awarded: $20,000,000

• $7,500,000 - Norfolk to pay out $7.5 million to teen hit by city truck

  Awarded: $7,500,000

• $3,190,000 - $3.19 Million Settlement Reached in Fatal Ship Explosion

  Awarded: $3,190,000

• $3,000,000 - Man incarcerated unjustly gets $3 million for mental anguish

  Awarded: $3,000,000

• $2,200,000 - Woman wins $2.2 million in soap slip

  Awarded: $2,200,000

• $1,250,000 - Jury gives $1,250,000 to little girl

  Awarded: $1,250,000

• $600,000 - Shipyard to pay $600,000 to survivors of sailors

  Awarded: $600,000

• $179,500 - Man Brutalized in Jail Settles Case for $179,500

  Awarded: $179,500

Product Liability Injuries

• $14,000,000 - Products Liability case nets record settlement

  Awarded: $14,000,000

• $4,100,000 - Jury awards $4.1 million to injured forklift driver

  Awarded: $4,100,000

• Virginia Power settles land-contamination law suit - Virginia Power settles land-contamination law suit

Car Accident Injuries

• $60,000,000 - $60 million for brain injured driver

  Awarded: $60,000,000

• $60,000,000 - Delivery van crash leads to $60 million verdict for victim

  Awarded: $60,000,000

• $27,000,000 - Company held responsible for guest in company truck

  Awarded: $27,000,000

• $17,500,000 - Accident victim wins $17.5 million verdict

  Awarded: $17,500,000

• $12,400,000 - Virginia Beach woman gets $12.4 million

  Awarded: $12,400,000

• $6,300,000 - Brain injured driver wins $6.3 million

  Awarded: $6,300,000

• $6,000,000 - Norfolk lawyers win $6 million jury verdict

  Awarded: $6,000,000

• $2,900,000 - Crash victim gets $2.9 million from Virginia Beach

  Awarded: $2,900,000

• $2,100,000 - Jury awards $2.1 million for loss of leg

  Awarded: $2,100,000

• $1,800,000 - Woman is awarded $1.8 million for loss of leg in horrific crash

  Awarded: $1,800,000

• $600,000 - Injured School Principal gets $600,000 in truck accident

  Awarded: $600,000

General

• $425,000 - Molestation Victim Wins $425,000 Settlement

  Awarded: $425,000

• $400,000 - State Senator's company to pay $400,000 in suit

  Awarded: $400,000

Medical Malpractice

• $750,000 -

  JANUARY 26, 2001

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  CHIROPRACTOR SETTLES SUIT, PAYS PATIENT $750,000

  Published: Friday, January 26, 2001
  Section: LOCAL, page B1
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS

  © 2001 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A chiropractor who apparently twisted a patient's neck so hard that it caused a brain stem stroke has agreed to pay the patient $750,000.

  Chiropractor Mark Soccio and his practice, Pembroke Chiropractic, agreed to the medical malpractice settlement in mid-trial in Virginia Beach Circuit Court.

  The settlement was reached last month, on the trial's fifth day, just before closing arguments. It was reported recently in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, a legal newspaper.

  The settlement is close to the $1 million maximum in Virginia for medical malpractice claims at the time of the injury, 1998. It is now $1.5 million.

  The patient, Lynette V. Lathrop, was hospitalized in critical condition after the stroke on December 16, 1998, according to a written summary by her attorneys, John W. Drescher and Edwin J. Rafal.

  She remained hospitalized for a week, then spent a month in a Newport News rehabilitation center and two months in an Oklahoma rehabilitation center. She still has problems with her memory, sight and walking, and she has weakness in the left arm and shoulder.

  Soccio could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Dante M. Filetti, declined to comment.

  Before trial, Soccio offered $100,000 to settle the case. The eventual settlement of $750,000 was more than Lathrop would have accepted before trial, her attorneys wrote.

  The case was settled confidentially, but details of the trial and settlement were published recently in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, except for the names of the parties. That case summary matches the case that was tried in November and December in Virginia Beach.

  Drescher said he could not comment beyond what was published in the legal newspaper.

  Lathrop sought treatment for neck and back pain in May 1998. For six months, the chiropractor performed 30 "high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic neck adjustments" on Lathrop, according to the case summary. Lathrop began complaining of severe headaches and neck pain after that.

  One week after the severe pain began, Soccio gave Lathrop another "adjustment" and Lathrop suffered a brain stem stroke. Soccio told Lathrop's friend, who had accompanied her to the office. to take her to the nearest emergency room, where she was admitted in critical condition.

  Later, doctors said the stroke was caused by tearing of the inner lining of a spinal artery. "There was no dispute that one or more of the December chiropractic adjustments caused the dissection leading to the stroke," Lathrop's attorneys wrote in the case summary.

  Lathrop has no memory of the last treatment because of the stroke.

  At trial, a key defense witness, an expert in chiropractic care, testified at first that Soccio did not violate Virginia's standard of care, then changed his opinion on cross-examination. The case was settled the next day, just before it would have reached the jury.

  

  This article is ©2001 Landmark Communications, Inc. and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $750,000

Serious Injuries

• $20,000,000 -

  $20 MILLION AWARD FOR INJURY WILL STAND

  Published: Saturday, September 18, 1999
  Section: LOCAL , page B1
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  © 1999 Landmark Communications Inc.

  The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld the biggest personal-injury verdict in state history: $20 million for a 10-year-old Richmond boy who was severely burned at a Virginia Power substation near his home.

  The boy got into the substation by crawling under or climbing over a chain-link fence. He received a 13,500-volt shock and suffered third-degree burns on his face, chest and arms.

  The boy's attorneys said Virginia Power did not properly install, maintain and inspect the fence. A jury in Charles City County agreed. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict.

  That ruling could have an impact here in Hampton Roads. In Portsmouth, another Virginia Power substation appears to have the same security problems.

  Norfolk attorney Jeffrey A. Breit, who represented the Richmond boy, said a substation at 949 County St. in Portsmouth has numerous gaps in its security fence. Worse, Breit said, children's toys are inside the fence, indicating that children play in and around the substation.

  ``Several large gaps underneath the fence (are) big enough for a child to gain entrance to the substation,' Breit said. ``In fact, the gate of the substation is so poorly secured that a child could fit between the two gates.'

  Virginia Power spokesman Jim Norvelle declined to discuss individual substations. ``As a company, we always put safety first,' Norvelle said.

  Of the Supreme Court ruling, he said, ``We certainly respect the decision of the court.' He would not elaborate.

  The Richmond accident happened on July 21, 1996, near the Summerset Glen Apartments. Three boys were playing catch when the ball went over the substation fence.

  The substation is surrounded by a 6-foot, chain-link fence topped by barbed wire. The gate was locked and signs on the fence warned, ``Danger: High Voltage.'

  One of the boys, 10-year-old James Dungee, either crawled under the fence or climbed over it. Once inside, he suffered a huge ``flashover burn,' in which electricity jumps or arcs from charged equipment to an adjacent object.

  The boy suffered third-degree burns over 25 percent of his body. He underwent eight skin surgeries over the next 35 days and was left permanently scarred and disfigured. He will require many future surgeries and years of physical and psychological therapy.

  At trial, a neighbor testified that he told a Virginia Power worker one month before the accident that he had seen children playing in the substation. He said he showed the employee holes and gaps under the fence and warned, ``Somebody is going to get injured.'

  A Virginia Power inspector testified that he inspected the substation two weeks before the accident, saw ``kids and stuff' around the substation and gaps under the fence. He said he did not report the holes because he thought they were not big enough for anyone to get through.

  The jury found Virginia Power negligent and awarded the boy $20 million.

  On appeal, Virginia Power argued that the boy himself was negligent. The Supreme Court disagreed. Under Virginia law, the court ruled, it is presumed that a child from 7 to 14 years old does not have the capacity to understand the dangers of his acts, and therefore is legally incapable of being negligent.

  Virginia Power also asked the court to reduce the $20 million award. Again, the Supreme Court disagreed. ``The evidence of the plaintiff's past, present and future pain and suffering was compelling,' the court ruled.

  Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Virginia Power's argument that it is not liable for harm to trespassers.

  After the five-day trial in July 1998, the boy's attorneys tried to negotiate a settlement with Virginia Power, but the utility refused, Breit said.

  ``It was clear from the start of this litigation that Virginia Power did not want to accept responsibility for this unfortunate accident,' Breit said. ``Hopefully, now Virginia Power will acknowledge their wrongs and prevent this from ever happening again.'

  Awarded: $20,000,000

• $7,500,000 -
  By Harry Minium
  Michelle Washington
  The Virginian-Pilot
  © February 6, 2008

  NORFOLK

  The city has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by a woman whose son was hit by a truck driven by a city employee.

  The City Council was briefed on the issue during a closed-door meeting Tuesday night. City Attorney Bernard Pishko said the matter has not been resolved and declined further comment. However, two city officials who asked not to be identified said the council agreed to the settlement.

  The circuit judge hearing the case must approve any settlement. The case is scheduled to go to trial next week. Council approval isn't necessary because Pishko has the right to settle lawsuits, but he sought approval anyway.

  The payout could make the task of balancing the budget more difficult for City Manager Regina V.K. Williams. The city is self-insured and thus pays for settlements from its own funds.

  The lawsuit was filed in Norfolk Circuit Court in January 2007 by Renee D. Wilson on behalf of her son, Travis Dalton.

  Wilson's lawyer, Jack Drescher, said Dalton was standing in the median on Brambleton Avenue near Posey Lane in December 2006 when he was struck by a city truck driven by city employee Theodore Goodman. Dalton suffered serious brain injuries.

  The lawsuit first named Goodman as a defendant. Wilson later added the city.

  Dalton, who is 19, now functions at the level of an 11-year-old, Drescher said. He had been on his way to a job interview when he was hit. Now he will never work, according to documents filed by Drescher and his partner, Jeffrey Breit.

  Dalton spent three months in the hospital following the wreck and returned frequently for follow-up visits. Doctors had removed a portion of his skull to relieve pressure from swelling in his brain. His medical expenses have exceeded $329,000, Drescher said.

  Dalton lives with his mother in Norfolk.

  The city had argued that it was not liable because Goodman was traveling between two of its recreational facilities. Governments have some protection from lawsuits because of sovereign immunity.

  Drescher and Breit argued that Goodman could be held personally liable because he was driving from one place to another, not performing tasks related to his job.

  Because the city is self-insured, it puts revenue each year into an account to pay legal settlements. Sources said the council was told Tuesday night that the fund will pay most, but not all, of the $7.5 million settlement.

  That means some money likely will have to be set aside to pay for the settlement in the next budget, which Williams is currently putting together.

  City officials had already said it was going to be a difficult budget to balance. Budget director Marcus Jones told the council last month that based on fixed costs the city can't control, the budget is million in arrears, and that's without pay raises, new programs or tax cuts.

   

  Michelle Washington, (757) 446-2287, michelle.washington@pilotonline.com

  Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com

  Awarded: $7,500,000

• $3,190,000 -

  MAY 19, 1994

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  SETTLEMENT REACHED IN FATAL SHIP EXPLOSION

  Published: Thursday, May 19, 1994
  Section: LOCAL, page D3
  Source: STAFF REPORT

  © 1994 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A deadly maritime explosion off the coast of South Africa has resulted in a $3.19 million settlement for the families of a ship's captain and four crew members killed in the blast.

  U.S. Steel Mining Co., Inc. agreed this week to pay $2.35 million in damages.

  A federal judge in Norfolk had previously ordered the Pittsburgh-based company to pay an additional $840,000 related to the explosion on the coat-carrying ship, Berge Charlotte, on Oct. 27, 1990.

  Jeffrey A. Breit, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the explosion was caused by a buildup of methane in one of the ship's holds.

  US Steel Mining Co., which had sold the coal to a Taiwanese company, failed to warn the ship's crew that the coal was of a highly volatile variety, Breit said.

  The coal was mined in West Virginia and loaded onto the Norwegian ship in Norfolk.

  Killed in the explosion was captain Denzil J. Pereira, Vinod P. Menon, Vali M. Dosani, Niyaz S.A. Shaikh and Vallabhbhai N. Tandel. All were from India.

  Breit said the explosion led to changes in the international rules governing the way coal shipments are labeled.

  

  This article is ©1994 Landmark Communications, Inc. and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $3,190,000

• $3,000,000 -

  MARCH 10, 2003

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  UNJUST IMPRISONMENT - MENTAL ANGUISH

  Published: March 10, 2003
  17 VLW 1014
  

  © Virginia Lawyers Weekly Inc.

  
  
  On Feb. 21, 1996, Daniel Caldwell received a near-fatal head wound caused by a gunshot in the home of a friend. The event was witnessed by three people, including 15-year-old Ricky Cullipher, Jr. After the gunshot, everyone then present left the house in various stages of distress, clearly concerned about the consequences of the act which had just taken place. Two of them arranged medical assistance for Caldwell, and another disposed of the weapon. In due course, all returned to the home and were available to the police for questioning.
  
  Cullipher fled the scene, stopping first at the home of a female classmate to whom both Cullipher and Caldwell were attracted. Later, when he arrived at his home, Cullipher was in such a state of distress that his father immediately questioned him. Upon learning of the events that took place, Cullipher Sr. returned Cullipher Jr. to the crime scene in order for Cullipher to speak with police investigators.
  
  Cullipher gave the police a long, detailed statement. His explanation was that the four individuals had been in the house smoking marijuana. One of them produced a revolver, which he claimed to have purchased earlier that day. Caldwell asked to see the gun after it was unloaded. Caldwell looked at it and then suggested that the group play Russian Roulette. Everyone refused.

  Caldwell then loaded the pistol with one round, spun the cylinder, and shot himself in the head. Cullipher explained that he ran in sheer terror because of what had happened. Two of those present at the shooting were African-American and had experienced previous problems with the law. Immediately after Caldwell was injured, they agreed to inform the authorities that Caldwell had been shot "by some white guy" in order to deflect blame from themselves. Cullipher was the only white male at the scene of the shooting.

  Eventually, all present at the shooting gave statements reflecting exactly what Cullipher had told the police. The authorities then seemed to be satisfied that Caldwell's injuries were self-inflicted.

  Edgar Browning, the Hampton police detective in charge of the investigation, eventually went to Riverside Rehabilitation Center in the spring of 1996 to talk with Caldwell. Browning had been informed by Caldwell's mother that her son told her that he had been shot by Cullipher. Caldwell, still recovering from the severe injury he sustained, was then unable to communicate with Browning.

  In May 1996, Browning returned to the hospital and interviewed Caldwell. In the course of the conversation, Caldwell had purportedly stated to Browning that he had been shot by Cullipher. Browning believed Caldwell and placed Cullipher under arrest the same day.

  Cullipher, accompanied by his father at police headquarters, was confronted by Browning with Caldwell's claim. Browning made it clear to Cullipher that he wanted a statement about the facts. Since he believed Caldwell, Browning sought a statement markedly different from the one Cullipher provided on the night of the incident. Cullipher initially denied that he shot Caldwell and reaffirmed his first statement, asserting that Caldwell had shot himself.

  Browning made no inquiry about the petitioner's educational or intellectual status, and he did not seek Cullipher Sr.'s assistance in attempting to resolve matters. Instead, Browning suggested that Cullipher and his father be separated and informed that father that his son might feel more comfortable talking to Browning alone. At the end of the interrogation, Cullipher gave Browning a statement which was construed as a "confession." Based upon the new statement, Cullipher was charged with the malicious wounding of Caldwell.

  The juvenile and domestic relations district court for the city of Hampton certified Cullipher, 15, for trial as an adult and transferred the matter to the Hampton Circuit Court. Thereafter, Cullipher was indicted and ultimately convicted at a bench trial.

  Cullipher's father initially retained George L. Smith to represent his son. Smith entered the case within a few days of Cullipher's arrest and represented Cullipher through the transfer hearing and trial.

  Immediately after the trial, Smith was fired. Eventually, J. warren Tomlin was retained as counsel. Several hearings were conducted on Cullipher's motion for reconsideration of the transfer order certifying him for trial as an adult; the motion for a mistrial; the motion for a new trial; the motion to compel post-trial discovery of exculpatory evidence; the motion for competency determination; the motion for suppression of involuntary confession; and the motion for sentencing as a juvenile. All motions were denied.

  Some 11 months after conviction, Cullipher returned to the circuit court for sentencing. After noting the utter tragedy of the circumstances, the court sentenced Cullipher as an adult to 20 years in the penitentiary on the maiming charge, 14 of which were suspended for a period of 20 years; and three years in the penitentiary, consecutively, on the charge of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. All defense motions were renewed and denied at the sentencing hearing.

  Cullipher moved for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Other post-trial motions and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus were denied. Both the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the original conviction were pursued on appeal and denied.

  A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed, and an evidentiary hearing was conducted. The writ of habeas corpus was granted upon grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the Virginia Department of Corrections was ordered to release Cullipher immediately from incarceration. Cullipher had by that time served over four years of his sentence.

  The Commonwealth of Virginia, under mandate from U.S. Magistrate Judge James E. Bradberry, chose not to retry Cullipher on any of the charges for which he had been previously convicted. All indictments were nolle prossed.

  A legal malpractice cause of action was brought against George L. Smith, maintaining in part that while representing Cullipher, he negligently: (1) failed to make notes of his interviews and appointments with the petitioner, Cullipher, or the petitioner's mother; (2) failed to file written motions for discovery in both the juvenile and domestic relations district court or circuit court; (3) failed to review relevant court files as well as police and Commonwealth’s Attorney files made available to counsel; (4) failed to interview any witnesses; (5) failed to confer with the doctors responsible for Caldwell’s surgical and rehabilitative care; (6) failed to interact with his own client long enough to conclude that he was educationally and intellectually handicapped; (7) failed to seek assistance in presenting petitioner’s educational/intellectual situation either to the juvenile and domestic relations district court or to the circuit court; (8) failed to appeal the petitioner’s transfer from the juvenile and domestic relations district court to the circuit court for trial; (9) failed to review Caldwell’s medical records for the relevant periods of his rehabilitative history in April and May, 1996; (10) failed to locate and talk with a critical witness present in the room immediately before Caldwell was injured and who corroborated the initial statement provided by petitioner; (11) failed to locate and talk with another witness in the room at the time of the shooting; (12) talk with an eyewitness before trial; (13) failed to properly move for a continuance of the bench trial due to the non-appearance of an exculpatory witness who had been personally served with a subpoena, but failed to appear; (14) failed to properly and adequately cross-examine witnesses called to testify against Cullipher in the course of trial; (15) failed to challenge the "confession" offered by the Commonwealth or challenge the circumstances under which it was obtained; (16) failed to know that in the criminal trial of a juvenile being tried as an adult, a jury has no power to sentence upon conviction; (17) failed to explain to the accused his right to jury trial and advise him as to the most prudent course to follow; and (18) failed to demand a jury trial for the accused.

  These failures of Smith breached the standard of care of prudent practitioners representing criminal defendants in prosecutions such as the one for which Cullipher was convicted of two felonies. Additionally, Smith actually admitted that in his own mind Cullipher was guilty of the crimes charged and, without the authority of Cullipher or his parents, decided not to perform the foregoing acts, which violated his obligation to represent Cullipher in an acceptable and professional fashion.

  

  This article is © 2003 Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

  Awarded: $3,000,000

• $2,200,000 -

  AUGUST 28, 2000

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  WOMAN WINS $2.2 MILLION IN SOAP SLIP
  

  Published: August 28, 2000
  Source: Deborah Elkins

  © Lawyers Weekly, Inc.

  Wal-Mart Stores must pay $2.2 million to a woman who slipped on soap in the restroom of the Winchester Wal-Mart, in a decision released Aug. 17 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  In her suit, Ladonna Goehler alleged that she had slipped in liquid soap that pooled on the floor underneath the soap dispenser.

  The unpublished per curiam opinion is available as Goehler v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (VLW 000-2-191).

  Although the store maintained that the dispenser had always been situated over the sink, so that excess soap dripped directly into the basin, the plaintiff employed an expert witness who produced photographs showing that the soap dispenser had in fact been moved, according to the 4th Circuit's opinion.

  The retailing giant then supplemented its discovery responses to acknowledge that the dispenser was moved. The appellate court said the district court did not err in letting the jury know that Wal-Mart had changed its position regarding whether the dispenser had been moved, in order to impeach Wal-Mart's credibility as to the dispenser's original location.

  At trial, Wal-Mart speculated that the soap dispenser might have been moved by maintenance workers when they installed a paper towel dispenser. The dispute between the parties did not implicate Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the appellate panel said, because the retailer had not relocated the dispenser to remedy a hazardous condition, and indeed, may not have directed relocation of the dispenser at all.

  And the plaintiff produced evidence of the store's negligence, the panel said. Under Virginia law on premises liability, "[w] here a defendant's affirmative conduct in this case, the placement of the soap dispenser is alleged to have created a dangerous condition on its premises, the jury must determine whether 'an ordinarily prudent person, given the facts and circumstances [the defendant] knew or should have known, could have foreseen the risk of danger resulting from such circumstances."

  One of the store's maintenance employees testified that she knew that these dispensers sometimes leaked. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the danger of soap leaking onto the floor, and that this danger was foreseeable as a result of the location of the soap dispenser.

  The size of the verdict was not excessive, the panel said, because the plaintiff and her doctor both testified to her extreme pain. She underwent surgery for relief from that pain, after which she developed two serious staph infections, producing complications that required additional surgeries.

  Plaintiff was represented by attorneys Jeffrey A. Breit and John L. Watts of the law firm of Breit, Drescher & Imprevento, P.C.

  Awarded: $2,200,000

• $1,250,000 -

  NOVEMBER 1992

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES
  Jury gives $1,250,000 to little girl Chuckatuck youth
  lost mom in accident; dealership is blamed

  Published: November 1992
  Source: By: Barbara Coleman, STAFF WRITER

  © 1992 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  An Isle of Wight County jury has awarded a near record judgment to a four-year-old Chuchatuck girl.

  The child, Laquisha Turner, was awarded $1,250,000 in damages as a result of an accident that took place on Nov. 22, 1991. It is the second highest jury award in the history of Isle of Wight County.

  An Isle of Wight jury brought the verdict in on the eve of the anniversary of the death of Valerie Turner, the victim who was a resident of Brown Lane.

  Circuit Court Judge Westbrook J. Parker presided over the trial that was over in a matter of hours on Nov. 23. Attorneys Jack Drescher and Jeffrey Breit of the Norfolk law firm of Breit, Drescher & Imprevento, were the attorneys for the little girl.

  On her behalf, they sued Blake Ford/Lincoln-Mercury for the wrongful death of the 25-year old mother. She died after her car was struck by an oncoming vehicle driven by Stewart Whitehead, who also died in the collision.

  Turner and Whitehead were driving along Route 603 in Isle of Wight County when the accident occurred.

  Whitehead, a salesman with the automobile dealership was driving one of the vehicles furnished by Blake Ford/Lincoln-Mercury.

  Breit and Drescher won the case on the premise that the dealership was responsible for its employees when they operate company vehicles displaying the dealer's name.

  Jeffrey Breit pointed out that when the four-year old was put on the witness stand to testify, she enchanted the jury.

  "It was clear that the jury fell in love with her," he added. "She's bright and she has a great deal of potential despite the multiple tragedies she's weathered."
  

  Not only did Laquisha lose her mom in the accident, but on Nov. 3, she lost her great-grandmother who was her appointed guardian.

  

  This article is ©Landmark Communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $1,250,000

• $600,000 -

  OCTOBER 27, 1994

  THE VIRGINIAN -PILOT ARCHIVES

  SHIPYARD TO PAY $600,000 TO SURVIVORS OF 9 SAILORS FAULTY REPAIRS IN BAHRAIN 4 YEARS AGO LED TO A BOILER ROOM ACCIDENT THAT KILLED 10.

  Published: Thursday, October 27, 1994
  Section: LOCAL, page B3
  Source: BY JACK DORSEY, STAFF WRITER

  © 1994 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A Bahraini shipyard has agreed to pay $600,000 to the families of nine of 10 Norfolk-based sailors killed four years ago in a boiler room accident about the assault ship Iwo Jima.

  "It will not make anyone very comfortable," said attorney Stephen K. Carr of New York. "But at least is giving them some solace. I think it is going to help close the door to all of this."

  Jeffrey A. Breit, a Norfolk attorney who has also represented some of the families, called the settlement a major accomplishment.

  "Considering that shipyard was a government-owned company in a foreign land, this was the best we could do," Breit said.

  In February, Carr won a $6.1 million judgment from a New Jersey federal court against the Bahrain Ship Repair and Engineering Co., but none of the money could be recovered. Awards of $331,000 to $1.2 million were to go to each of the nine families; relatives of one crew member chose not to enter the litigation.

  "We couldn't find any assets of the BSRAEC shipyard in the U.S. and we had no way of enforcing that default judgment over in Bahrain," Carr said.

  Carr also filed suit in Bahraini courts on behalf of the families, seeking $200,000 each.

  The families were expecting a judgment in that case next month when the shipyard decided to settle out of court. Initially, the yard offered $370,000.

  "We were able to negotiate that up in stages to $600,000," Carr said. "The value of wrongful death judgments in Bahrain, as far as we are able to make out, is that they kind of top out at around $70,000. Even if we had gone to judgment, we would not have expected to have done as well as we have."

  The $600,000 is to be divided among the families based on a formula designed by the New Jersey federal judge. The families of those victims who dod not dies instantaneously received more money, as did those families where the victims left dependents.

  In an effort to pressure the shipyard, Congress last year enacted legislation prohibiting the Defense Department from entering into contract with the shipyard until it initiated proceedings to compensate the families.

  The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Owen B. Pickett, a Democrat who represents parts of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, provides exceptions in the vent emergency work is required or if national security is involved.

  Breit said Pickett's legislation helped force the shipyard into a settlement.

  "He deserves a lot of credit. Otherwise, we'd still be over there arguing," said Breit.

  The Navy appears to have avoided the shipyard since then. Only one contract, for less than $100,000, has been awarded to the shipyard since the prohibition, according to Carr.

  He suggested that with more U. S. ships in the Persian Gulf now because of the latest Iraqi crisis, "it may have had something to do to stimulate this resolution."

  The shipyard was held liable for the explosion after a Navy investigation disclosed that the Oct. 30, 1990, accident resulted from improper repairs made to a main valve in one of the ship's boilers.

  A shipyard employee mistakenly used the ship's supply of brass nuts, bolts and studs to fasten a valve bonnet to the valve, the Navy report said. The brass, softer than the stainless steel that should have been used, failed when the boiler reached high temperatures. That allowed the release of steam, which led to the sailor's deaths.

  

  This article is ©1994 Landmark Communications, Inc. and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $600,000

• $179,500 -

  APRIL 25,1990

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  MAN BRUTALIZED IN JAIL SETTLES CASE FOR $179,500

  Published: Wednesday, April 25, 1990
  Section: LOCAL, page D4
  Source: Staff report

  ©1990 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A former Suffolk City Jail inmate has won an out-of-court settlement of $179,500 against four sheriff's deputies who allegedly failed to protect him from being brutalized and sodomized by three cellmates

  Raymond Bailey, 19, of Isle of Wight County, settled the case Monday, one day before the civil rights case was set for trial in Federal District Court in Norfolk.

  The attacks reportedly took place in June 1988, after Bailey was jailed on a misdemeanor conviction for trespassing. Court papers say Bailey is "slow of mind and speech" and "borderline mentally retarded," and was held in a cell with numerous hardened criminals.

  Suffolk Sheriff J. Irving Baines was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. Capt. James E. Vaughan said: "I know not one thing in the world about it. I understand there was a settlement."

  The defendants in the case were sheriff's deputies David H. Allmon, Francis Carter, Larry Almond and Jesse Goodman.

  Bailey's lawsuit charged that three cellmates repeatedly sodomized him. According to the lawsuit, when Bailey slipped a note through the jail cell begging for help, the jailers ignored him.

  The defense admitted that the assaults took place, Bailey's attorneys said, but the defendants denied having been deliberately indifferent to Bailey's predicament.

  The lawsuit said Bailey's terrorizers were a fugitive from justice being held for extradition on a felony charge; a felon convicted of rape, assault and an escape in which he reportedly broke a fellow inmate's arms in three places; and another convict known to have assaulted police officers. "They are still incarcerated, to my knowledge," Bailey's attorney, John W. Drescher, said Tuesday.

  The lawsuit maintained that jail personnel failed to keep an eye on Bailey's cell despite a policy that such monitoring take place every 30 minutes.

  Another inmate, held in a separate section of the cell, reportedly saw the attacks on Bailey and called for help. That inmate, Henry L. Wilson was himself beaten by Bailey's alleged tormentors, the lawsuit charges, but jail personnel still failed to act.

  Bailey's lawsuit accused the defendants of "gross and deliberate indifference to the safety" of the inmate. It specifically charged them with failing to segregate young misdemeanor offenders from violent repeat offenders; failing to hire and train sufficient personnel; failing to maintain adequate supervision; and deliberately allowing crowded jail conditions.

  

  This article is © 1990 Landmark Communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback

  Awarded: $179,500

Product Liability Injuries

• $14,000,000 -

  OCTOBER 16, 2000

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  PRODUCTS CASE NETS RECORD SETTLEMENT

  Published: Monday, October 16, 2000
  Section: 15 VLW 531
  Source: By DAWN CHASE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

  © Lawyers Weekly Inc.

  A $14 million settlement has been reached in a case in which a woman was severely burned when the three-wheel parking enforcement vehicle she was driving tipped over and caught fire.

  The settlement, which was reached partly through mediation three weeks before trial, is believed to be the largest in a products liability case in Virginia. Retired Judge Robert L. Harris, Sr. of the McCammon Group was the mediator.

  The case style is being kept confidential, upon requests by lawyers on both sides. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond and was to be heard by Judge James R. Spencer. The defendants included the manufacturer and distributor of the vehicle. Click here to read the Trial Report on this case.

  According to Michael F. Imprevento of Norfolk, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, the facts of the case are these:

  The plaintiff was employed by the Richmond police department as a parking enforcement officer. She was required to drive a three-wheeled motorized vehicle.

  On April 20, 1998, she was driving the vehicle around a curve on Hermitage Road in Richmond when it tipped over. Fuel spilled from the filler neck, which had no cap on it. The fuel ignited. The woman was trapped in the enclosed passenger compartment, which was engulfed in flame. A bystander kicked in the windshield of the compartment and pulled the woman out.

  The woman suffered second-and third-degree burns over more then half her body. Injuries included loss of her ears and nose, the fingers on both hands and damage to her corneas. Special damages were estimated at $1.2 million in medical bills and lost wages.

  The plaintiff's case honed in on two factors -- the vehicle's stability, and "how and why the fuel escaped from the filler neck," Imprevento said.

  A subsequent investigation by the Richmond Police and the Virginia Commonwealth University Crash Team concluded the accident was the plaintiff's fault, she had been driving too fast to negotiate the curve, and she was driving the vehicle without a gas cap, they said. Richmond police searched the accident scene and retraced the plaintiff's route, but did not find the cap, Imprevento said.

  However, the plaintiff provided evidence that she "was a wonderful employee who had an excellent reputation of operating by the book," Imprevento said. The plaintiff testified that the gas cap was on at the time of the accident.

  Subsequent investigation revealed that other drivers of the vehicles had occasionally lost caps, some due to a vibration contention the defendants' experts contested. The plaintiff's investigation also determined that manufacturers of other types of transport had stopped using the cap style that came with the vehicle involved in the suit.

  And the plaintiff suggested the filler neck in the vehicle did not conform to industry standards. The cap used a bayonet-style lock, and could be placed on the neck without being fully sealed; consequently, "the integrity of the fuel system was seriously compromised." Imprevento said.

  The defendants countered that any such defect was de minimis and would not have any effect on the clamping pressure necessary to keep the cap on the filler neck.

  Richmond police now are using a newer model of the vehicle, which has a relocated gas tank and a different cap model, Imprevento said. The plaintiff's lawyers found that information in discovery and planned to introduce it during trial, if they could overcome barriers to presenting subsequent corrective measures.

  "This was a very technical and complex case," Imprevento said. "It was a difficult case."

  Legal issues

  Among the legal difficulties were determining what industry standard applies to regulating three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicles. The defense contended the vehicle is required to conform to standards required of motorcycles. The plaintiff argued that standards governing passenger cars or light trucks should be applied.

  Federal court requires an analysis of violations of applicable standards, as well as consumer expectations, in products liability cases, Imprevento said.

  To prepare the case in the "rocket docket" time frame in the Eastern District, Imprevento employed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)6, which allows taking the depositions of corporate designees who can speak for the way the corporation operates.

  Rather than depose numerous employee witnesses, through FRCP 30(b)6 the plaintiff provides the corporation with a list of requirements that their witness must meet, and the corporation selects an appropriate designee.

  Consequently, Imprevento was able to depose only one witness each on such issues as design, warranty disclaimers and regulatory classification, he said.

  Richmond lawyer Dabney J. Carr IV, who represented the defendant distributor, said his client settled before the mediation. "We felt that we had a reasonable chance of summary judgment," but decided to settle based upon "the seriousness of the injuries," he said.

  Also representing the plaintiff in the case were Richmond lawyers Robert E. Walker Jr., the first lawyer consulted by the plaintiff; Donald J. Gee and A. Donald McEachin, who were brought in by Walker; and Norfolk lawyer Jeffrey A. Breit, a partner of Imprevento. Imprevento and Breit were associated by Gee and McEachin's firm because of the Norfolk firm's experience in products liability, Imprevento said.

  

  This article is (c) 2000 Lawyers Weekly, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

  Awarded: $14,000,000

• $4,100,000 -

  MAY 1, 1998

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  MAN WHOSE HAND WAS CRUSHED BY FORKLIFT WINS $4.1 MILLION

  Published: Friday, May 1, 1998
  Section: LOCAL, Page B5
  Correction appears at end of story
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  ©1998 Landmark Communications Inc.

  A jury awarded $4.1 million Thursday to a forklift operator whose hand was crushed in a 1993 industrial accident.

  The victim, Dwight D. Nichols, 29, of Chesapeake, lost all function in his right hand when it was crushed by a forklift at the Gwaltney of Smithfield meatpacking plant on Dec. 6, 1993. He was right-handed.

  Nichols sued the forklift's manufacturer, Clark Equipment Co. of Lexington, Ky., and the distributor, Atlantic Lift Systems, Inc. of Norfolk for $11 million. He claimed the forklift was defective.

  After an eight-day trial in Norfolk Circuit Court, the jury deliberated one hour before reaching its verdict.

  Nichols' attorneys were Jack W. Drescher, Michael F. Imprevento and John L. Watts, all of the Norfolk law firm of Breit, Drescher & Imprevento. "Obviously we're pretty happy about the verdict," Drescher said.

  It is among the largest jury verdicts even in Hampton Roads, but it is not the biggest. Two Portsmouth cases in 1997 resulted in verdicts of $20 million and $12 million - the former for a truck accident, the latter for a railroad worker's injury.

  The Smithfield accident happened as Nichols operated a forklift at the meatpacking plant. He had stopped the forklift with the lift hanging in the air. As Nichols reached inside the forklift to make adjustments, the lift fell down unexpectedly, crushing his hand and arm.

  The hand was not amputated, but Nichols has undergone 11 or 12 surgeries since then, the lawyer said.

  Nichols is single and has no children, but he did support his mother and sister before the accident, Drescher said. He in now unemployed.

  The lawsuit accused Clark and Atlantic Lift of negligently designing, manufacturing and marketing the forklift. The case was pending 2 1/2 years before it went to trail.

  Correction:
  CLARIFICATION

  A $4.1 million jury verdict Thursday in Norfolk was against Clark Equipment Co. of Lexington, Ky., but not against Atlantic Lift Systems, Inc. of Norfolk. Atlantic was originally a defendant in the case, but was later dropped. A story Friday about the verdict was not clear about that.

  Correction published Saturday, May 2, 1998 on page A2 of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

  

  This article is ©1998 Landmark Communications Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $4,100,000

• Virginia Power settles land-contamination law suit -

  AUGUST 16, 1997

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  VIRGINIA POWER SETTLES LAND-CONTAMINATION LAWSUIT
  THE PLAINTIFF, FRANK SPICER CO., HAD EARLIER ACCEPTED A CITY OF NORFOLK'S OFFER.

  Published: Saturday, August 16, 1997
  Section: LOCAL, Page B3
  Source: BY JUNE ARNEY, STAFF WRITER

  ©Landmark Communications Inc.

  Virginia Power on Friday agreed to a confidential settlement in a lawsuit filed by Frank Spicer Co. that alleged Spicer's restaurant supply business was contaminated by a city-owned toxic waste site.

  The lawsuit, in which spicer sought $15 million, was scheduled fro trial on Monday. Earlier this month, the city of Norfolk agreed to pay $75,000 to Frank and Peggy Spicer to settle its part of the lawsuit, without admitting responsibility for the contamination on Monticello Avenue, near downtown.

  "The Spicers are pleased with the results," Michael F. Imprevento, an attorney representing them, said Friday. "It's been a long hard battle."

  The Spicers alleged that Virginia Power created the toxic mess decades ago, although the utility hadn't owned the property since 1970. Under the terms of the undisclosed settlement, Virginia Power did not admit any responsibility for the contamination as part of the settlement.

  According to Spicer's lawsuit, the city knew 12 years ago that toxic contaminants from the site had infiltrated Norfolk's groundwater, but did not tell anyone who lives or owns property nearby.

  In 1985, during construction of a sewer line, the city uncovered hazardous waste buried at the site and soon learned that the groundwater was contaminated, the lawsuit says.

  Spicer claimed that his property was first contaminated by flowing groundwater. Later Spicer claimed, toxic gasses seeped into his building after the paving because they had nowhere else to escape.

  Another nearby business owner, auctioneer Calvin Zedd, who owns a warehouse and office on Monticello, filed his own lawsuit against Norfolk and Virginia Power in October 1996. That suit seeks $3 million.

  The problem began more than 100 years ago. Starting around 1853, before the Civil War, illuminating gas was manufactured on the site. Virginia Power took over the operation around 1930, then shut it down and dismantled the plant in 1968.

  The city bought the Virginia Power site in 1970. It previously owned half the site.

  In July 1995, the city paved the property and created the parking lot to stop rainwater from running through the land and contaminating groundwater.

  Five months later, in December 1995, Spicer sued the city and Virginia Power. He claimed the toxic waste - mainly buried coal tars and ash - had contaminated his property across the street and posed a health hazard to him and his employees.

  

  This article is ©1997 Landmark Communications Inc., and many not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

Car Accident Injuries

• $60,000,000 -

  AUGUST 24, 2002

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

  JURY AWARDS $60 MILLION TO MAN HURT IN CAR WRECK

  Published: August 24, 2002
  By: Janie Bryant

  © The Virginian-Pilot

  PORTSMOUTH -- A jury ordered a delivery company to pay $60 million to a 40-year-old man left with severe brain damage and catastrophic health problems after an August 2000 traffic accident.

  Brian Hugen woke up in Sentara Norfolk General Hospital 62 days after the accident on Va. 32 in Suffolk.

  The furniture mover from Sunbury, N.C., spent six months in hospitals and almost died three times, according to his wife, Florence ``Flo' Hugen.

  "He's a fighter, and I get my strength from him," she said Friday after jurors returned the verdict.

  The accident was caused by the driver of a van for Velocity Express, a same-day delivery company, said Jeffrey A. Breit, one of Hugen's attorneys.

  The driver drove into on-coming traffic and hit Hugen's car after hitting another car, Breit said. The jury, which arrived at a verdict in less than an hour, found the corporation responsible.

  Attorneys for Hugen sought $85 million in compensation and were pleased the jury came back with such a large award.

  "My sense is they evaluated the future cost of health care, coupled with the devastating injuries," said John W. Drescher, who represented Hugen with Breit and Boyd Scarborough.

  Hugen suffered a collapsed lung and fractures in his leg, hand and face.

  One of the complications of the brain injury is a condition called heterotopic ossification, which causes abnormal buildup of bone and immobility of his joints. Hugen has it in both elbows, his shoulders and possibly his knees.

  He has some movement, but effectively he's a quadriplegic," Drescher said. "His overall condition will just deteriorate."

  Velocity Express' attorney, John K. Train IV, said Tuesday it was possible that the driver of the third car caused the accident.

  Hugen was severely injured, Train said, but he has recovered from some of those injuries and surgery may help him recover more.

  "What this case boils down to is how can we make Brian get better," Train said. "His condition is not as dire as you have just heard."

  But Drescher said Hugen's doctors determined the risk of serious complications from surgery "outweighed the chance for success."

  Jurors heard four days of testimony, including Flo Hugen's account of how her husband now sees her more as a "mother and caretaker."

  Hugen testified that she slept in a recliner near her husband's hospital bed in their living room so that she could move him every two to four hours.

  "There's no way to describe what these two years have been like," she said after the trial. "The whole quality of our life has changed."

  She told jurors she wanted to believe that she was doing the best for her husband but worried that she was "failing him."

  "I am fearful for what lays ahead for him," she said.

  After learning of the verdict, she expressed hope that her husband would get the medical care he needs.

  He deserves that opportunity after what he's been through for two years."

  Staff writer Amy Jeter contributed to this report. Reach Janie Bryant at 446-2453 or jbryant@pilotonline.com

  Awarded: $60,000,000

• $60,000,000 - Tying a record for personal injury verdicts in Virginia, a Portsmouth jury awarded $60 million in August to a North Carolina man who suffered a severe brain injury when his car was struck head-on by a delivery van in Suffolk.
  
  On Aug. 28, 2000, the plaintiff was heading north on state route 32 in Suffolk when the southbound van, owned by an express delivery company, crossed the center line and struck the plaintiff. Using the "jaws of life," rescue personnel removed the plaintiff from his car and transported him to a Norfolk hospital, where he was in a coma for 62 days. Other injuries included two collapsed lungs, a fractured leg and jaw, and a severe closed-head brain injury.
  
  While rehabilitating in Richmond, the plaintiff's head injury resulted in an unusual bone buildup, limiting the range of motion in his arms, legs and jaw. The risk of injury posed by his weight gain makes surgery difficult; in addiction, doctors said that the plaintiff's head injury would neutralize the benefits of surgery.
  
  According to the plaintiff's experts, his jaw will eventually ossify, forcing him to be fed by a tube. Limited movement has essentially rendered him a quadriplegic, and he has substantial cognitive defects. The experts estimated that he would require 24-hour care costing about $550,000 per year. With a life expectancy of about 35 years, those costs would amount to about $19 million.
  
  A furniture truck driver who earned $32,200 annually, the 38-year old plaintiff had incurred $660,000 in medical damages. The defendant did not contest the plaintiff's past medical costs or lost wages.
  
  Norfolk lawyer John W. Drescher said the defendant's experts did, however, contest the plaintiff's estimated future medical costs, contending that his wife and other family members would provide some of the required services. In their estimation, the plaintiff's future medical care would amount to about $150,000 per year.
  
  Representing the plaintiff, Norfolk lawyer Jeffrey A. Breit and Portsmouth lawyer Boyd Scarborough joined Drescher to file suit in Portsmouth, where the defendant maintains and office. The plaintiff claims $85 million in damages. The defendant's insurance coverage, provided by three different carriers, amounted to $101 million. At trial, Drescher said the plaintiff's wife provided compelling testimony. As a man who was "jolly in life," he was portrayed as an all-American working man.
  
  On the trial's third day, the defense offered $8 million in a structured settlement. The plaintiff's counter-offer, a $43 million demand with a high / low of $35 million and $8 million, was rejected. After deliberating for an hour, the jury returned a verdict for $60 million. The dollar figure included unspecified amounts for pain and suffering and interest on past medical bills.
  
  The verdict tied the previous record of $60 million handed down in French v. Southern, where a runaway train plowed into a Gainesville service station and severely injured a man. That verdict was ultimately set aside, and the parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

  Awarded: $60,000,000

• $27,000,000 -

  DECEMBER 25, 2000

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  COMPANY HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR GUEST IN COMPANY TRUCK

  Published: December 25, 2000
  Section: A-1
  Source: DAWN CHASE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

  © Lawyers Weekly Inc.

  A wrongful death case in which a woman was killed in a crash while riding in a tractor trailer driven by her boyfriend has been settled for a payout expected to reach almost $27 million.

  The settlement came after a Richmond circuit judge's pretrial ruling that the defendant driver's employer could be liable even though the boyfriend had violated his own company's policy and federal regulations by carrying an unauthorized passenger on his route.

  And the case was unusual in the value agreed to, given that the victim was 22, an unemployed mother of four with little work history and a welfare recipient in subsidized housing.

  The case, Bell, settled after voir dire, just before the trial began Dec. 14.

  The case was one for the bar exam," said an attorney who represented the defendant company in the suit.

  Lead plaintiff's attorneys were Brenda L. Page of Richmond and Jeffrey A. Breit of Norfolk.

  According to the motion for judgment, the facts of the case were these:

  On August 16, 1999, the victim, 22, was riding in a tractor-trailer driven by her boyfriend, who was driving to Pittsburgh to deliver a load of beef. Townsend ran a red light in Fauquier County and struck another tractor-trailer.

  The woman was killed. The boyfriend pleaded guilty to reckless driving.

  The victim had four children, ages 10 months, 2, 5, and 6 at the time of the wreck. The 2-year-old was disabled from a brain injury sustained as a baby.

  The defendant driver was granted custody of his children -- the two youngest. The father of the two oldest no longer was involved with the children -- custody of those children went to their paternal grandmother, who also was the administrator of the victim's estate.

  The wrongful death suit, which demanded $20 million, was filed in Richmond, where the defendant driver and victim cohabitated and where the defendant company had an office.

  During a December 7 hearing before Judge Randall G. Johnson, the plaintiff asked for a summary judgment that the trucker was acting in the scope of his employment when the accident occurred.

  The defendant company argued that respondeat superior did not apply, because the company had a policy that prohibited passengers. Also, federal regulations prohibit unauthorized passengers in commercial vehicles, the defense argued.

  "Why can't an employer direct its employees not to run red lights?" Johnson asked, according to a transcript of the hearing. "Anytime you run a red light, you're acting outside the scope of your employment."

  In his ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Johnson focused on the fact that, even though the driver had deviated from his assigned route to pick up the victim, the driver was on his route when the accident occurred.

  "[W]here there is a mixed motive . . . the employee is still acting within the scope of his or her employment," Johnson said.

  Another issue debated before trial was whether certain potentially prejudicial information would be put before the jury. Ultimately, Johnson rules that the defense could not introduce evidence that the victim had received welfare and lived in subsidized housing unless the plaintiff opened the door to the subject while making its case.

  He also rules that the jury could be told that one of the children has a brain injury and required special care. "If loss of services were to a special-needs child, then the jury gets to hear it," Breit said, summarizing Johnson's decision.

  The case involved numerous complexities. In his pretrial judgments, Johnson was filling in for the trial judge, who was ailing. The defendant driver would not allow the plaintiff's expert witnesses to interview his children, even though the children potentially could benefit from the expert testimony.

  And the driver's dual role as defendant and the custodian of two of the children was confusing. A prospective juror questioned during voir dire whether, if a verdict for the plaintiff were awarded, the defendant driver would have a role in handling the money.

  Miller said he believes that Johnson's ruling on respondeat superior would not have stood up on appeal.

  However, the case settled as the jurors sat in the box.

  According to Page and Breit, the settlement required $4.25 million in cash up front. Payouts for the children's lifetimes will be guaranteed at $9.2 million. The expected payout will be $26.9 million.

  In apportioning the money among the four children, the funds were divided into sixths. The brain-injured child will receive three-sixths of the funds, and the others will receive one-sixth each.

  Page and her associate, Alan F. Duckworth, handled the case until the last month, when she brought in Breit and his associates, John L. Watts and Oscar L. Gilbert.

  Awarded: $27,000,000

• $17,500,000 -

  JANUARY 30, 1997

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  ACCIDENT VICTIM WINS $17.5 MILLION AWARD BELIEVED TO BE LARGEST EVER BY A JURY IN VIRGINIA

  Published: Thursday, January 30, 1997
  Section: FRONT, page A1
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  ©1997 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  From the start, lawyers suspected that David J. Mraz might win a big jury verdict this week in his personal-injury trial. The only question was how big.

  Two mock juries had heard Mraz"s case in a practice trial Jan. 4 and awarded him stunning sums: $20 million and $17.5 million. "He has been through hell," one juror said afterward.

  On Wednesday, after a weeklong trial in Portsmouth Circuit Court, Mraz got the real verdict from a real jury, and it was every bit as big as expected: $20 million.

  Lawyers on both sides believe it is the biggest jury verdict ever in Virginia.

  Under terms of an agreement with the insurance company, however, Mraz will receive $17.5 million, minus legal fees of about $5.8 million, and the insurance company waives the right to appeal.

  Mraz wept in his wheelchair as the verdict was read, gripping the hands of his attorneys, Jeffrey A. Breit of Norfolk and Bruce D. Rasmussen of Charlottesville.

  "This wasn't a high verdict. This was a fair verdict," Rasmussen said later. "It's just that this was such an unusual case."

  One defense attorney agreed: "It was the worst injury case in my career, the worst I've ever heard of," said John M. Oakey, Jr., of Richmond.

  Mraz, 37, was nearly crushed in a freak 1994 truck accident near Charlottesville. He is a former counselor for learning-disabled and emotionally disturbed children. He grew up in Norfolk, lived in Charlottesville at the time of the accident, and now lives in Norfolk.

  Mraz and his Honda Civic were crushed by a 16-ton concrete wall that fell from a tractor-trailer as the truck rounded a curve on a winding two-lane road in rural Albermarle County.

  The wall landed on the front of Mraz's car, almost in his lap. The Honda was demolished. Mraz was pinned inside from the waist down, his pelvis smashed. Eventually he lost one leg, his spleen, spent nine months in a hospital and ran up $925,000 in medical bills.

  He returned home in a wheelchair, 35 years old with a wife and four children, never to work again.

  The concrete wall was 35 feet long, 10 feet high and one foot thick. It was being hauled on a flatbed trailer from a plant in Fredericksburg, bound for a renovation project at the Roanoke Hotel and Convention Center.

  The wall was tied down with two straps and a cable, standing upright inside the trailer. The straps snapped as the truck rounded a curve, as Mraz was passing in the opposite direction.

  It was Mraz's wife's birthday, and Mraz was out running routine errands - buying a birthday card for his wife and fishing rods for his two young sons. His wife, Elizabeth, was waiting at home, getting ready for a birthday dinner at Red Lobster.

  At trial, there were two issues:

  Who was to blame for the mishap?

  How much should Mraz get in damages?

  Mraz sued three defendants: Exposaic Industries, Inc.of Virginia, a Fredericksburg company that manufactured the concrete wall and loaded it onto the truck; Rainbow Trucking, Inc. of Culpeper, and truck drive Charles L. Williams.

  Mraz's attorneys argued that all three were negligent - that Exposaic did not properly secure the load in the truck, and that Rainbow and Williams did not properly monitor the load while driving the truck.

  By law, the lawyers argued, the wall should have been tied down with four straps, not three.

  One witness testified that the wall was wobbling loosely inside the straps before it fell. Another said truck drivers had complained in the past about how Exposaic loaded its concrete panels onto trucks, but nothing was done.

  "This was a company that was cutting corners on safety." Rasmussen told the jury.

  The companies blamed each other.

  Exposaic said the wall was firmly secured when it left the plant. The company suggested that the driver was speeding. Rainbow, however, said it did not load the truck and that Exposaic never told the driver how to keep the load secure.

  Defense attorneys asked the jury not to award Mraz damages. "Just because he's been in an accident, had a horrible injury, doesn't mean you have to give him money," Exposaic's attorney, Oakey, told the jury.

  More important was the amount of damages.

  Mraz's lawyers asked for $30 million. They said Mraz had $925,000 in past medical bills and would need about $3.1 million for future bills. They said Mraz would lose about $497,000 in future income. They suggested more damages for pain and suffering.

  "That's an enormous sum of money," Rasmussen told the jury, but "David Mraz has earned it. David Mraz deserves it because of what they did to him."

  Defense lawyers called the $30 million figure outrageous.

  "I don't think there's anyone in this courtroom who's not sympathetic to David Mraz and what he had gone through," Oakey told the jury. But, Oakey said, $30 million "probably represents the total lifetime earnings of everyone in this courtroom."

  The jury deliberated eight hours Tuesday and Wednesday before rendering it's verdict against all defendants. Then, five jurors waited outside the courtroom to congratulate Mraz and offer support.

  Mraz declined to comment publicly.

  "He was overjoyed knowing he could take care of his family," Breit said later. "But he wanted to go home."

  Mraz will not get all of that $20 million.

  In an agreement reached before closing arguments, the insurance company agreed to pay a minimum of $4 million and a maximum of $17.5 million, depending on how the jury ruled, lawyers said Wednesday.

  That means that even though the jury awarded $20 million, the payout actually will be $17.5 million. In return, the insurance company will waive all rights to appeal.

  Also, Mraz's attorneys will take a standard one-third contingency fee, which is about $5.8 million, to be split by two law firms.

  That means Mraz will get about $11.7 million.

  Lawyers on both sides said they believe that the biggest previous jury verdict in Virginia was in Richmond in 1991. In that case, a jury awarded $10 million to Daniel Rexinger, executive vice president of Circuit City Stores, Inc., after a 1988 car accident.

  Much of that money was compensation for lost income. Rexinger was making almost $500,000 a year in salary and other compensation.

  Most person-injury cases never go to trial; they are settled out of court. In the Mraz case, the two sides were never really close enough to settle, Breit said.

  Before trial, the defendants offered $5.5 million, Breit said. After two days of trial, the defendants raised the offer to $6 million, then raised it again to $8 million after Mraz testified Friday, Breit said. Mraz's attorneys asked for $12 million.

  After the verdict, Mraz went home, but his legal team celebrated with champagne and veal at a downtown Norfolk restaurant.

  "To David." Rasmussen said, raising his champagne glass.

  "And to Portsmouth juries," Breit added.

  

  This article is ©1997 Landmark communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $17,500,000

• $12,400,000 -

  AUGUST 29, 2000

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  BEACH WOMAN GETS $12.4 MILLION

  Published: Tuesday, August 29, 2000
  Section: Front, page A1
  Source: By MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  © Landmark Communications Inc.

  NORFOLK - A preschool teacher whose arm was crushed by a monster truck at a 1998 Virginia Beach show won a $12.4 million settlement Monday from the truck's owner and the show's organizer. It is one of the biggest out-of-court settlements ever in Hampton Roads.

  The victim, Joy Kubitza of Virginia Beach, now 29, was a paying passenger in the 4x4 monster truck, called Grave Digger, when it flipped on the Oceanfront beach while doing high-speed twists and turns on October 17, 1998.

  The truck was carrying 13 paying passengers. Kubitza was the most seriously hurt.

  At the time, police said none of the thrill-seekers was badly injured. After the truck overturned, all the passengers were dangling upside down, strapped to their seats. Six passengers, ranging in age from 2 to 52, were treated at a hospital and released.

  Kubitza's right arm was crushed between the truck and the sand. Doctors at the time did not realize how serious her injury was.

  A few days later, her arm swelled to three times its normal size. Since then, she has undergone 37 surgeries and nerve-blocking procedures.

  Her arm is now useless and causes her constant, severe pain, she said. Her hand has contracted into a permanent claw. Her elbow has also contracted so that her arm is nearly pressed into her chest. She suffered serious nerve damage. She wears a large brace and an electrical device that helps moderate her pain.

  Before the accident, Kubitza was a preschool teacher at the Norfolk Naval Base Child Development Center. She can no longer work.

  "I'm in agony every second of the day," she said Monday.

  Last year, Kubitza sued the truck's owner, Grave Digger 4x4, Inc., and the show's organizer, Cellar Door Entertainment, Inc., for $15 million. The case was settled Monday morning in Norfolk Circuit Court, just before the trial was to start.

  "It was a very good settlement for a very deserving young lady," said one of Kubitza's attorneys, O.L. "Buzz" Gilbert, of Norfolk.

  "She'll never get use of the arm back," said Kubitza's other attorney, Jeffrey A. Breit. "But it's the pain that's disabling."

  Grave Digger and Cellar Door agreed to pay $5.5 million in cash, to be paid over Kubitza's lifetime. She eventually will receive $12.4 million, including interest.

  Grave Digger agreed to pay nearly $1 million, the maximum available from its insurance policy. Cellar Door agreed to pay $4.5 million.

  "It'll help me find a doctor who can help me," Kubitza said.

  It is not the biggest award in a Hampton Roads personal injury case. That came in a $20 million jury verdict during a 1997 Portsmouth car-crash trial. The award was later reduced to $17.5 million in a settlement.

  The Grave Digger accident happened at the first Monster Truck Show at the Oceanfront. Thousands of spectators came to cheer on trucks with names such as Carolina Crusher, Nitemare and The Undertaker that raced over man-made sand dunes.

  On the resort strip, customers paid $5 to ride in the Grave Digger, billed as "the world's best-known monster truck" - a 1950 Chevrolet panel van with skulls, crossbones and tombstones painted on its sides. The cab is more than 10 feet off the ground.

  The truck didn't appear scary, Kubitza said. "It seemed like fun," she said.

  But near the end of the ride, the truck tipped as it hit the water's edge. "He was gunning it for the water, toward the water," and seemed to be going too fast, Kubitza recalled. Some tires hit wet sand while others were on dry sand.

  There may have been too many trucks on the beach, Gilbert said - three trucks in a spot big enough for one. That may have forced the Grave Digger onto the wet sand, he said.

  After the accident, Kubitza said she did not receive an apology, visit or call from the driver, the Grave Digger company or Cellar Door.

  Today, she takes the same pain medication as an end-stage terminal cancer patient, Gilbert said.

  A one-week trial was scheduled to start Monday. Kubitza's parents traveled from New Hampshire to be with her. The case was settled after lengthy negotiations and a final phone call to Cellar Door's insurance company Monday morning.

  Attorneys for Grave Digger and Cellar Door declined to comment.

  Reach Marc Davis at 446-2303 or mdavis@pilotonline.com

  

  This article is (c) 1996 Landmark Communications, Inc. and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $12,400,000

• $6,300,000 -

  OCTOBER 23, 2000

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  BRAIN INJURED DRIVER WINS $6.3 MILLION

  Published: Monday, October 23, 2000
  Section: Trial Reports, 15 VLW 570
  Source: Virginia Lawyers Weekly

  © 2000 Lawyers Weekly Inc.

  Type of Action: Personal Injury - Auto Accident

  Type of Injuries: Severe closed head/traumatic brain injury with brain stem trauma with loss of speech, diminished vision, loss of ability to walk without assistance and multiple fractures. Plaintiff's injuries rendered him totally and completely dependent on others for all tasks of everyday living, including but not limited to eating, bathing, dressing, etc.

  Name of Case: Thompson v. Porte, Almas, et al

  Court/Case #: Norfolk Circuit Court, At Law No. L98-1500 and L99-2227

  Judge or Jury: Jury

  Name of Judge: N/A

  Special Damages: Approximately $250,000 in medicals as of 9/99 - approximate future lost wages of $750,000 and significant future medical and life care expenses based upon a Life Care Plan prepared by a plaintiff's expert rehabilitation counselor/certified case manager.

  Awarded/Settled: Settled in part, trial in part

  Amount: First defendant that rear-ended plaintiff settled for $2,400,000 (all of the available coverage). Second defendant tried with a verdict for the plaintiff of $3,700,000. Third defendant tried as an uninsured motorist and settled for $200,000.

  Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael F. Imprevento, John W. Drescher, and Jeffrey A. Breit of Norfolk

  Plaintiff's Experts: Dr. Gregory O'Shanick; Dr. Tripti Jena; Marianne Baxter, R.N.; Sharon Reavis, Rehabilitation Counselor/Certified Case Manager; William G. Reese, Ph.D., Economist

  Insurance Carrier: Montgomery Mutual - Government Employees Insurance Company (uninsured motorist coverage)

  Other Useful Info: Plaintiff was stopped on an interstate highway due to an accident in front of him involving vehicles driven by two other drivers. Subsequently, a third vehicle approached the plaintiff's vehicle from behind and failed to stop, causing his vehicle to strike the plaintiff's vehicle with great impact. Plaintiff sued the driver of the vehicle which stopped on the interstate, the driver who caused that second driver to stop and the driver who rear-ended plaintiff when he was stopped.

  The plaintiff is limited in his ability to communicate to any substantial extent with the outside world. He cannot work at his previous calling and will never hold gainful employment at any time in the future.

  In December, 1998, during the course of plaintiff's case against all defendants (At Law No. L98-1500), the plaintiff entered into a covenant not to sue for $2,400,000 against the defendant who rear-ended the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued his claim against the remaining defendants. A bench trial was held on September 7, 1999, and on the morning of trial the plaintiff nonsuited defendant Almas, who was uninsured at the time of the accident and represented by the plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier. At the conclusion of the bench trial, judgment in the amount of $3,700,000 was entered against defendants Porte and Stormont Trice Corporation.

  Subsequently the plaintiff refiled his lawsuit against Almas (At Law No. L99-2227), an uninsured motorist, defended by the plaintiff's own insurance carrier, GEICO. GEICO claimed that it was fully discharged of the initial $3,700,000 judgment and, therefore, the plaintiff was prohibited from pursuing a further judgment against Almas. Briefs were filed by counsel for the parties and the court eventually determined that it would permit the matter to proceed to trial. Following the testimony of several of the plaintiff's witnesses on the first day of trial on May 1, 2000, this matter was settled between the parties; settlement was in the amount of $200,000.

  

  This article is © 2000 Lawyers Weekly, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

  Awarded: $6,300,000

• $6,000,000 -

  NOVEMBER 1988

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES
  Norfolk lawyers win $6 million jury verdict

  Published: November 1988
  Source: By: Vance Richardson, STAFF WRITER

  © 1988 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  Most plaintiff's attorneys dream of multi-million dollar settlement offers; two Norfolk attorneys had the nerve to reject one.

  Jeffrey A. Breit and John W. Drescher turned down a $3 million offer to settle a personal injury suit on behalf of a 78-year-old woman who lost an arm and a leg after being struck by a truck in Virginia Beach. They apparently made the right choice, however, as the jury eventually awarded their client $6 million--the biggest verdict ever in Norfolk and one of the highest awards in the state.

  "I was ready to check myself into the psychiatric ward," Breit said of the decision to reject the settlement. "Even judges were telling us that $3 million is a lot of money to turn down."

  Plaintiff, attorneys were confident

  But Breit and Drescher were confident the jury would award their client more in damages, and the plaintiff and her family wanted to wait for the jury verdict, Breit said.

  The offer came after the second day of a six-day trial in Norfolk Circuit Court. Four days later, after the jury had been deliberating for about 90 minutes, an insurance adjuster asked Breit and Drescher if their client would consider a $3.5 million offer, Drescher said. They presented the offer to the plaintiff's grandson, who was acting as the family spokesman. He rejected the informal offer and within 15 seconds the jury began filing into the courtroom with their verdict.

  The case stemmed from an accident July 3, 1987, in which the plaintiff, Helen Doss of South Boston, was struck from behind by an 11-ton refrigeration truck as she walked across the parking lot of D&M Marina in Virginia Beach. The truck had been parked at the top of an incline, when its brakes failed. The driver turned sharply to the right to avoid colliding with a building or running into the marina, but he lost control and struck the plaintiff, Drescher said.

  Doss lost her right leg above the knee and her left arm above the elbow. She also lost all functional use of her left leg and is confined to a wheelchair.

  The verdict was rendered against three defendants: L.M. Sandler & Sons, Inc., which owned the truck; Currituck Crab Co., Inc., which leased the truck from Sandler; and James Robert Langley, Jr., Currituck's driver. The three defendants had combined insurance coverage of $11.5 million.

  Key to the plaintiff's case was testimony by two Virginia Beach police officers that the driver told them after the accident that he had had brake failure at least two other times that day and had informed Currituck of the problem.

  Punitive damages denied
  
  The plaintiff sought $12.5 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitives. Judge John E. Clarkson took the punitive claim away from the jury on a summary judgment motion by the defense.

  The $6 million verdict, returned Nov. 30, includes $410,719 in existing medical-related expenses. The plaintiff's projected medical expenses are $86,000 a year.

  State's second largest verdict

  The verdict is believed to be the second largest in Virginia history. In 1986 Charlottesville lawyer J. Randolph Parker won an $8.3 million medical malpractice verdict. That case is presently on appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  

  This article is ©Landmark Communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $6,000,000

• $2,900,000 -

  MARCH 12, 1997

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  CRASH VICTIM WILL GET $2.9 MILLION FROM BEACH

  Published: Wednesday, March 12, 1997
  Section: LOCAL, page B1
  Correction appears at end of story
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  ©1997 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A gardener whose face was crushed then rebuilt, after a 1993 accident with a Virginia Beach police car will receive $2.9 million from the city over the next 40 years.

  The City Council, in a closed-door session Tuesday, approved the out-of-court settlement, believed to be the biggest the city has every paid.

  The agreement will cost the city $1.425 million in cash, with some of the money to be paid now and the rest to be invested and paid in monthly installments over 40 years.

  The victim, Daniel Hoosack of Norfolk, now 31, suffered brain damage and had his face rebuilt with plates and screws after the crash. It happened New Year's Eve 1993 on Laskin Road, near Hilltop.

  A lawsuit against the police car driver, Officer Sean R. Coerse, was set to be tried next month in Circuit Court.

  Instead, the City Counsel agreed Tuesday to pay Hoosack $714,000 immediately to put another $711,000 in an annuity that will pay Hoosack an additional $2.2 million over the next 40 years, in monthly installments.

  "It takes care of Danny Hoosack for the rest of his life, and that's the idea," said Hoosack's attorney, John W. Drescher. "He really wants to put this behind him."

  "This is a big dollar amount," agreed Assistant City Attorney Richard J. Beaver, in what is otherwise a routine traffic case. "This guy was pretty badly injured in this collision."

  On one other point there is no dispute: The crash was caused by a police officer who wasn't paying attention to where he was driving. "Liability was never an issue," Drescher said Tuesday.

  Beaver agreed: "We didn't have a whole lot to say about liability."

  The accident happened at 9:30 p.m. as Hoosack was riding home from a New Year's Eve party in a friend's car, Drescher said. The car stopped at a corner on Laskin road near Hilltop. A police cruiser going 40 or 45 mph then rammed into the rear of the car.

  Hoosack, in the front passenger seat, slammed face-first into the windshield. The impact shattered his face bones and caused brain damage, Drescher said.

  Hoosack spent several weeks in a hospital, his face rebuilt with plates and screws. It took several operations, Drescher said. Hoosack still cannot go outside on cold days because it causes pain in his face and heard, the lawyer said.

  A police investigation showed that Coerse, the police officer, was not paying attention while driving. He was on the force three years before the accident. He was not suspended and is still a patrol officer, Beaver said.

  Hoosack was a gardener before the accident, but hasn't worked since. He recently got a part-time gardening job at Norfolk Botanical Garden, Drescher said. He will start when warm weather arrives.

  Hoosack could not be reached to comment about the accident or the settlement. His father said he was unavailable.

  The out-of-court settlement was reached last week and approved Tuesday by the City Counsel. There was no public discussion or public vote. The city did, however, discuss the settlement after the council meeting.

  The money will be paid from the city's self-insurance pool, a reserve set aside every year to pay for such claims. Virginia Beach, like many major cities has no liability insurance. It has been self-insured since 1986.

  The Hoosack case recalls the last big out-of-court settlement by Virginia Beach: a 1987 head-on car crash caused by then-Commonwealth's Attorney Paul A. Sciortino.

  In that case, the city paid $950,000 to the victim, a Yorktown man who suffered a torn aorta and other internal injuries.

  Sciortion was driving to a prosecutors conference in Richmond when his car crossed the median of Interstate 64 in Hampton and hit an oncoming car.

  Later, he was convicted of improper driving.

  A controversy erupted when the city tried to keep the Sciortino settlement secret.

  The agreement was reached privately by attorneys for Sciortino and the crash victim, and it required confidentiality. City Councilwoman Reba McClanan, however, decided that was unfair to taxpayers and revealed the settlement publicly.

  A week later, the City Council adopted a new policy that requires a public vote for any settlement over $100,000. There was no such vote Tuesday, but Beaver said that that policy did not apply to the Hoosack case because it was a lawsuit already pending in court. The policy applies only to claims made against the city before being filed in court, he said.

  Correction:

  
  Daniel Hoosack, who won a $2.9 million out-of-court settlement Tuesday from Virginia Beach, was a back-seat passenger who smashed his face on the front seat in an accident with a police car. It was incorrectly reported Wednesday that Hoosack was a front seat passenger who smashed his face on the windshield.

  Correction published Thursday, March 13, 1997

  Description of illustration(s):
  THE ACCIDENT

  The 1993 accident happened as Daniel Hoosack was riding home from a NewYear's Eve party in a friend's car. The car stopped at a corner on Laskin road near Hilltop. A police cruiser than rammed into the rear of the car. Hoosack, in the front passenger seat, slammed face-first into the windshield.

  THE SETTLEMENT

  Virginia Beach City Council agreed to pay Hoosack $714,000 immediately and put another $711,000 in an annuity that will pay him an additional $2.2 million over the next 40 years, in monthly installments.

  

  This article is ©1997 Landmark Communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $2,900,000

• $2,100,000 -

  NOVEMBER 1990

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES
  Jury awards $2.1 million for loss of leg

  Published: November 1990
  Source: By: Henry Boyd Hall, STAFF WRITER

  © 1990 Landmark Communications, Inc.

  NORFOLK --- A woman who lost her right leg after a truck ran her down in 1986 was awarded $2.1 million by a Circuit Court jury Tuesday.

  On Monday, Constance King, 33, of Norfolk had rejected a settlement estimated at $580,000 to be paid in a lump sum and additional monthly installments of $1,000, said William D. Breit and John W. Drescher, King's attorneys.

  On Tuesday, jurors deliberated for an hour before recommending that she receive a one-time payment of $2.1 million.

  "I just want to say one thing," King, who wore a simple dress that exposed her false leg, said when the verdict was read. "I want to thank the jury very, very much."
  Judge John W. Winston immediately upheld the verdict.

  Palmer S. Rutherford, Jr., who represented the truck driver Edward A. Lamm and Knox Truck Lines Inc., said he might appeal.

  Winston's decision to let the jury see a photograph of King's "mangled" right leg was prejudicial, Rutherford said.

  "It shifted the focus. It was so gruesome," he said.
  Rutherford has 21 days to ask Winston to set aside or reduce the award.
  On Sept. 30, 1986, King was standing on a median at Hampton and Admiral Taussig Boulevards near the Norfolk Naval Station.

  Lamm, traveling on Taussig, took a tight left turn onto Hampton Boulevard, where King stood waiting to cross the street.

  The empty flat-bed trailer of the truck struck King in the back and knocked her to the ground. The trailer's rear wheels crushed King's leg, Rutherford said.

  King had three operations, but the leg was amputated just below the knee Oct. 7, 1986, when plastic surgeons decided she had lost too much tissue on the limb.
  At the beginning of the trial, Lamm and Knox Truck Lines admitted negligence. Therefore, the only matter for the jury to decide was the amount of money King deserved.

  In closing arguments, Breit and Drescher asked jurors to award her $3 million for her injuries and loss of potential future earnings. Even though King hasn't held a job since the ninth grade, her attorneys argued that she is qualified to work as a maid or a cafeteria worker.

  Drescher and Breit said they would help her find a financial planner or ask the court to appoint a guardian.

  

  This article is ©Landmark Communications, Inc., and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $2,100,000

• $1,800,000 -

  AUGUST 29, 1991

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

  WOMAN IS AWARDED $1.8 MILLION FOR LOSS OF LEG IN HORRIFIC CRASH

  Outrage on Alcohol:
  Large punitive damages for negligence in traffic accidents reflect a turn in public opinion toward tougher punishment of drunken drivers. The Virginia Supreme Court in a 1988 ruling called getting intoxicated "willful and wanton conduct" and "conscious disregard of the rights of others."

  By Matthew Bowers, Staff Writer

  CHESAPEAKE - After her right leg was torn off in the horrifying crash, Pamela A. Stafford would travel from her Suffolk home to shopping malls in Virginia Beach to practice walking, sometimes twice a day.

  She couldn't afford physical therapy. And going to Virginia Beach lessened her chances of encountering someone she knew.

  Mercifully, she doesn't remember the accident: A car going 80 mph down the wrong side of divided South Military Highway near Bowers Hill with its lights off slammed into the motorcycle she was riding with a friend the night of Oct. 1, 1988. The driver of the car, Robert L. Robertson, 65 of Portsmouth, had just left a bar two miles away.

  Stafford was knocked over the top of a police car that was chasing Robetrson. Her leg was thrown about 100 yards. Her friend also lost a leg.

  This week, Stafford received a measure of satisfaction. A Circuit Court civil jury Tuesday awarded the 27-year old woman $1.5 million to compensate her for her injuries.

  It also awarded her $500,000 in punitive damages from Robetrson. The judge had to lower that to $350,000 because of a state law capping the maximum allowed.

  "The jury cried out yesterday," said one of Stafford's attorneys, Michael F. Imprevento, still emotional about the case a day later.

  "We think it reflects the jury's outrage at his conduct and their sympathy at the plaintiff's plight."

  Her plight was agonizing. Police Officer David L. Holcombe and a woman passer-by held her hand and commanded her to look only at their faces. They didn't want her to see the stump of her leg and the bleeding.

  There was the Nightingale helicopter ambulance flight to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, where she spent a month. There were three operations, with a fourth scheduled next month, to combat pain from nerve damage and bone spurs. There were ill-fitting prostheses. There was the realization that her biking, softball and beech days might be over.

  Punitive damages such as those awarded Tuesday in Stafford's case are still a rare but growing aspect of the law on negligence in traffic accidents, local lawyers said. There were almost unheard of five years ago, before public opinion turned toward tougher drunken-dirving laws and remedies.

  But in 1988 the Virginia Supreme Court allowed a jury to consider such an award in a similar wrong-way collision involving alcohol. The court called getting intoxicated "willful and wanton conduct" amounting to a "conscious disregard of the rights of others" that was open to punishment.

  Leonard D. Levine, a Virginia Beach personal-injury attorney for more than 30 years, said it now is "almost malpractice" not to ask for punitive damages in lawsuits alleging drunken driving.

  "What it reflects is that this campaign, this grassroots campaign to exert pressure against this drunk-driving epidemic, is really working."

  Said Chesapeake lawyer John W. Brown: "It sends the word out that when you get these kinds of circumstances, that the jury is not going to sympathize with the defendant so much, and they're going to give out large awards."

  The punishment of the car's driver comes too late, Stafford's attorneys say.

  Robertson pleaded guilty in February 1990 to reckless driving, was fined $1,000 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service. Charges of drunken driving and assault and battery were dropped because blood-alcohol tests were conducted by a non-certified person.

  Marvin E. Williams, the driver of the motorcycle, died in April at age 29 shortly after an operation.

  Robertson declined to discuss the case last year and his attorney could not be reached Wednesday.

  Robertson told his week's jury that he had only three Scotch-and-sodas at the bar, that when he left he thought someone was chasing him and that he possibly went into a diabetic coma because he remembered nothing about the collision.

  Officer Holcombe vividly recalled the night. He saw Robertson's car with it's lights off going the wrong way down the road. He followed it for almost a mile as oncoming cars veered off the road. Williams also tried to swerve on his Kawasaki 550 but couldn't get out of the way.

  At the accident scene, Robetrson fell repeatedly, smelled of alcohol, slurred his words and urinated on himself, Holcombe said. He also refuse all sobriety tests.

  "This was more than reckless driving," said Imprevento, Stafford's attorney. "He was a criminal that night."

  Imprevento said Stafford was not up to talking publicly about her ordeal but was glad for the chance to tell her story to a jury.

  She told the jury one other thing. She said she wished she had died in the accident.

  Awarded: $1,800,000

• $600,000 -

  APRIL 8, 2002

  VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY

  SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WINS $600,000 VERDICT
  AGAINST TRUCKING COMPANY

  Published: January 16, 2001
  Page 16 VLW 1124
  

  © Virginia Lawyers Weekly Inc.

  Type of Action: Negligence - Motor Vehicle

  Type of Injuries: Comminuted fractures of the femur, radius and elbow

  Name of Case: Kenneth W. Gray v. David E. Johnson and New Prime, Inc.

  Court/Case No.: United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia #2:01cv219

  Judge or Jury: Jury

  Name of Judge: F. Bradford Stillman

  Special Damages: Medical Expenses of $85,228.87 and lost wages of $18,583.26

  Awarded/Settled: Awarded
  

  Amount: $600,000.00
  
  Plaintiff's Attorney: John W. Drescher, Norfolk

  Plaintiff's Experts: Stephen B. Chewning, accident reconstructionist, Richmond; and Dr. John A. Williamson, orthopaedic surgeon, Virginia Beach

  Defendant's Experts: David O. McAllister, accident reconstructionist, Richmond

  Insurance Carrier: Reliance Insurance Company

  Highest Offer: $250,000.00 before the insurer, Reliance Insurance Company became insolvent on October 3, 2001. Thereafter, the offer was zero.

  Lowest Demand: $750,000.00

  Other Useful Information: The plaintiff, a retiring Hampton elementary school principal, was driving his pick-up truck northbound on Route 258 in Isle of Wight County. Defendant Johnson, while acting within the scope of his employment with New Prime, Inc., was operating a tractor trailer southbound on Route 258.

  The collision occurred on Johnson's side of the road. Three independent eyewitnesses placed the tractor trailer in the plaintiff's lane of travel immediately prior to the collision. An off-duty emergency medical technician rendering assistance to the plaintiff within minutes of the crash testified that the plaintiff told him, "The tractor trailer was in the middle of the road. I swerved to miss it and the accident happened."

  The plaintiff experienced retrograde amnesia and had no recollection of the collision. He was transported via Nightingale helicopter to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital where he underwent emergency open reduction procedures for all fractures. Inpatient rehabilitation lasted over two months in various facilities and the plaintiff eventually was found to have a 24% impairment rating of the left upper extremity and no impairment of the left leg according to American Medical Association Guidelines.

  The circumstances of the accident were hotly disputed. The defendant claimed that he never left his lane of travel and that the plaintiff for reasons unknown crossed the center line and was totally responsible for the collision notwithstanding the evasive efforts undertaken by defendant. Tire marks from a number of vehicles (including police, fire and rescue vehicles tracking through leaking battery acid) as well as other gouges and scratches in the roadway presented a confusing picture for the jury. Counsel and court concluded that accident reconstruction testimony would be of some benefit; however, the parties could not agree on the extent to which certain opinions would be admissible.

  After appropriate evidentiary foundations were established, all experts opined that the point of impact occurred in defendant's lane of travel. The experts were in conflict as to whether or not the physical evidence supported the plaintiff's claim that defendant was at some point in the plaintiff's lane of travel.

  Plaintiff's expert, Stephen B. Chewning, determined through mathematical calculations and measurements that the tractor trailer was at least partially in the plaintiff's lane prior to and at the point of impact. Plaintiff's position was that the evidence supported a theory of sudden emergency to which he reacted by steering his vehicle to the left in an effort to avoid a head-on collision in his lane of travel.
  [02-T-65]

  

  This article is © 2002 Lawyers Weekly, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

  Awarded: $600,000

General

• $425,000 -

  OCTOBER 19, 1995

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ARCHIVES

  MOLESTATION VICTIM WINS $425,000 SETTLEMENT

  Published: Thursday, October 19, 1995
  Section: LOCAL, page B3
  Source: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER

  © Landmark Communications, Inc.

  A young girl who was the first victim of convicted child molester Charles R. Vette in 1989 has won a $425,000 settlement from the owners of the East Ocean View apartment complex that hired Vette as resident manager.

  The out-of-court settlement of the girl's lawsuit was approved Wednesday by Circuit Judge John E. Clarkson.

  Six more lawsuits by other Vette victims, all young boys, are pending. Each seeks $5.5 million in damages and they are not likely to be settled soon, if at all, both sides agree.

  The remaining cases pose two legal questions.

  Are the owners of the apartment complex liable for the six remaining molestations, since none of the victims lived at the complex? The girl was a tenant.

  If the owners are liable, does their $1 million insurance policy cover each victim, or must the $1 million be split among all seven victims?

  Vette molested six boys and one girl, ages 8 to 13, in his apartment at 9620 - 13th Bay St. in 1989. He was convicted of 12 counts of child molestation and sentenced to five life terms in prison.

  The apartment complex was recently torn down as part of the redevelopment of East Ocean View.

  During Vette's criminal trial, the victims testified about a slumber party in Vette's apartment in which Vette got the boys drunk, locked the door and enticed them out of their clothes after showing pornographic films.

  The lawsuit, filed by Norfolk lawyer Jeffrey A. Breit, claim Vette was "negligently hired, selected and retained and supervise" as resident manager. At the time, Vette was on parole, having served four years for molesting a 5-year-old Virginia Beach girl.

  Breit says Vette should not have been hired without a background check, which would have revealed his criminal record.

  "You are hiring the guy and you are creating this image for the public...'Here is our representative.'. He must be of higher ilk than Joe Shmoe," Breit said.

  Now that the first case is settled - requiring a judge's approval because the plaintiff is under age 18 - attention shifts to the other six victims. In these cases the owners' attorney, James A. Gorry, III, argues that the owners are not liable because the victims did not live at the complex.

  "Our position is that any negligent hiring had nothing to do with their situation," Gorry said. "He (Vette) could have been a tenant there. It just didn't matter...Even if it is negligent hiring, you don't get to (the owners) because that's not the proximate cause of these young boys' injuries."

  A separate issue is the $1 million insurance coverage. Clarkson has ruled that the $1 million must cover all victims. After deducting $425,000 for the first settlement that would leave $575,000 for the remaining six victims, or $95,833 each if they win their cases.

  Breit has appealed the insurance ruling to the state Supreme Court. A ruling these is expected in December.

  Description of Illustration(s):

  Charles R. Vette was convicted of molesting a girl and six boys in his E. Ocean apartment.

  

  This article is ©1995 Landmark Communications, Inc. and may not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $425,000

• $400,000 -

  FEBRUARY 3, 2001

  THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

  SECRET DEAL PROTECTED
  

  VA LAWMAKER BEACH SEN. FRANK WAGNER'S COMPANY TO PAY $400,000 TO SETTLE ACCUSATIONS OF OVERBILLING NAVY

  WHISTLE BLOWER'S CHARGES KEPT SEALED DURING
  DELEGATE'S ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR STATE SENATE

  Published: Saturday, February 3, 2001
  Source: Mark Davis

  ©Landmark Communications Inc.

  VIRGINIA BEACH -- State Sen. Frank Wagner's shipyard has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle allegations that it fraudulently billed the Navy -- charges that Wagner kept sealed in federal court during his December election campaign.

  Wagner's company -- Wagner Maritime Inc., trading as Davis Boat Works in Newport News -- settled the case shortly after the Dec. 19 election. It is a civil case and does not result in a criminal conviction.

  Wagner's former accountant alleged that the company submitted false bills to the government in 1997 and 1998 totaling more than $260,000.

  In the settlement, Wagner and the company did not admit wrongdoing. In an interview Friday, Wagner repeated his contention that he did nothing wrong and said he settled the case to prevent a long and costly trial.

  A federal judge unsealed the court record Friday.

  Wagner succeeded in keeping the file sealed during his campaign for the Virginia Senate in December. After that, he tried to keep the file sealed permanently, arguing to a judge that the records could embarrass him and his company.

  ``It's still our position that we did nothing wrong, and we felt it was appropriate to keep it sealed,' Wagner said Friday.

  But Judge Robert G. Doumar ruled Thursday that that wasn't a good enough reason, citing ``the public's strong right of access' to court documents and proceedings.

  ``This case involves allegations of misspent government funds, and the government's efforts to recoup those funds,' Doumar wrote. ``In such a case, the public's right of access to the record of the entire proceeding is quite strong.'

  Doumar said federal rules do not exist to shield defendants from embarrassing publicity.

  ``Every day, in courts all across the country, and in almost every civil case, an unsealed complaint is filed that alleges acts arguably embarrassing to the defendants named therein,' Doumar wrote.

  Wagner, 45, represented Virginia Beach in the House of Delegates for the past nine years before winning election to the state Senate on Dec. 19, filling the seat vacated by Edward L. Schrock. Wagner beat Democrat Louisa M. Strayhorn by a 2-1 margin.

  The allegations against Wagner were filed in court in January 2000 by a whistle-blower, Wagner's former accountant, who said she quit in 1998 after Wagner insisted she file fraudulent bills.

  The accountant, Becky J. Watson of Poquoson, will get a reward of 20 to 30 percent of the $400,000 settlement, said her attorney, John W. Drescher.

  On Friday, Wagner acknowledged the settlement but said he did nothing wrong.

  In a lengthy written statement and in an interview, Wagner said he merely followed the instructions of government contracting officials in submitting the bills. He said the government ``received full value and did not suffer any actual damages.'

  ``I can't overemphasize that,' Wagner said. ``They got dollar-for-dollar services. We didn't bill for anything we didn't do. All we did was bill the way the government told us to.'

  Wagner said he settled the case to prevent a long and costly trial that would have disrupted the company and jeopardized its relationship with the government.

  The U.S. attorney's office declined to comment Friday.

  Wagner's shipyard, on the James River near the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, repairs small ships and boats, including some for the Navy.

  The case began Jan. 13, 2000, when the accountant filed a civil action against Wagner Maritime on behalf of the federal government, under the federal False Claims Act.

  Watson's 13-page complaint accused Wagner and the company of submitting ``improper and fraudulent charges' for government repair work. She said Wagner Maritime ``routinely overbilled' for work in 1997 and 1998.

  When government jobs ran over budget, according to the complaint, Wagner instructed Watson to add charges to other government work.

  For example, the complaint said, Wagner ordered Watson to charge storage and boat lifting costs to the government when, in fact, no storage was provided and no vessels lifted.

  In another example, Wagner Maritime routinely charged the government for labor hours actually spent working on civilian vessels, the complaint said. Employee time cards were altered by whiting out any record of the project that an employee actually worked on, then replacing it with a government job, according to the complaint.

  Watson's complaint was filed under seal in Norfolk's federal court, as required by law. Watson served her complaint on the government, and the U.S. attorney then began investigating to decide whether to intervene in the lawsuit.

  By law, the government has 60 days to decide, but can get extensions. In this case, the government got three extensions. Meanwhile, the complaint remained sealed.

  The final extension was granted, along with a request by Wagner and the government to keep the file sealed, on Dec. 11 -- just eight days before the Dec. 19 election.

  Soon after, Wagner agreed to the settlement and asked that the entire matter be sealed permanently. Doumar denied that motion.

  

  This article is ©2001 Landmark Communications Inc., and many not be republished without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback.

  Awarded: $400,000

Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

Quick Contact

Videos

Case Results

Resources