The success enjoyed by the firm is demonstrated by the wide variety of cases that it undertakes and resolves. The firm handles a variety of challenging and complex cases. From simple car accidents to groundbreaking pharmaceutical litigation and innovative products liability litigation, the firm is dynamic, constantly seeking new ways to develop and grow its practice areas and better assist its clients.
The firm's verdicts and settlements were achieved in various types of cases including wrongful death, products liability, business and commercial torts, pharmaceutical, automobile accidents, nursing home, medical malpractice, fraud, trucking, construction and premises liability. Attorneys in the firm have handled many cases with notable results. Below is a sampling of such notable results followed by sample case summaries that contain more detailed information.
Notable Results
$9,000,000 in 18-wheeler accident case
$6,000,000 in a business tort case
$3,200,000 in a bad faith insurance case
$3,000,000 in an ATV case
$2,500,000 in a premises liability case
$2,500,000 in medical malpractice case
$2,300,000 in commercial truck accident case
$2,200,000 in pharmaceutical liability case
$1,900,000 in 18-wheeler accident case
$1,600,000 in commercial truck accident case
$1,600,000 in premises liability case
$1,500,000 in commercial truck accident case
$1,400,000 in medical malpractice case
$1,300,000 in products liability case
$1,300,000 in single vehicle rollover accident
$1,100,000 in car wreck case
$900,000 in car wreck case
$900,000 in products liability case
$850,000 in car wreck case
$800,000 in 18-wheeler accident case
$750,000 in products liability case
$650,000 in 18-wheeler accident case
$650,000 in bad faith insurance case
$600,000 in ATV accident case
$500,000 in commercial truck accident case
$500,000 in premises liability case
$425,000 in car wreck case
$400,000 in car wreck case
Sample Case Summaries
A detailed description of some of the more distinct cases handled by the firm is provided below.
BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
Environmental Products of America, Inc. v. Thetford Corporation, CV 01-7749, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. ($6,000,000 jury verdict)
Environmental Products of America, Inc. (E.P.A.) is a small Birmingham, Alabama based company that manufactures and sells cleaning products for the RV industry. The lawsuit alleged that after E.P.A. had been in business for a period of time it was approached by Thetford Corporation about the possibility of an acquisition. The plaintiff alleged that over an extended period of time proprietary information was shared with Thetford for the sole purpose of placing a value on E.P.A.'s assets. In the lawsuit, E.P.A. alleged that Thetford improperly used this confidential and proprietary information to assist with the development of a line of products by Thetford to compete with E.P.A. Thetford denied the plaintiff's allegations and all liability in the case. A jury trial was conducted in September of 2003 resulting in a jury verdict in favor of E.P.A. in the amount of $6,000,000. $3,000,000 was awarded in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 was awarded in punitive damages. Following trial the case was settled.
PREMISES LIABILITY
Terry v. YMCA of the Shoals, CV No. 03-288, Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Alabama ($2,500,000 jury verdict)
A five year old boy drowned in the aquatic center of the YMCA of the Shoals in Florence, Alabama while attending a Vacation Day Camp. Plaintiffs contended that the child drowned as a result of negligence by the YMCA's aquatic and child-care staffs. The YMCA contended that the child's death was an unavoidable accident. A Lauderdale County jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500,000 when the case was tried in May, 2005. The verdict was the largest rendered by a Lauderdale County jury in over ten years and was the second largest verdict in the history of the county.
PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION
Bonner vs. Wyeth, Merck, et al, CV-02-C-773-W, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Confidential Settlement)
In the early morning hours of February 25, 2000, the plaintiff's decedent passed away quietly in his sleep. He was 77 years old. He died because his heart rate slowed and then simply stopped. Many months later the Bonner family learned that one of the medications taken by Mr. Bonner was the subject of a recall by the manufacturer. Our investigation led to a lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Mr. Bonner was prescribed Etodolac, a drug designed to alleviate symptoms associated with osteoarthritis. The lawsuit further alleged that the batch of Etodolac from which Mr. Bonner's prescription came was contaminated in its manufacture with Sectral, a cardio-selective beta blocker. The plaintiff's allegations were that the ingestion of some amount of Sectral within Mr. Bonner's Etodolac pills caused his heart to slow and eventually stop. The case was vigorously prosecuted and defended in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The case settled near the conclusion of discovery. The defendants deny liability. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
NURSING HOME ABUSE AND NEGLECT
Varden v. Bill Nichols State Veterans Home, et al., CV-00-110 , Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County, Alabama (Confidential Settlement)
The plaintiff's decedent was admitted to a nursing facility in June of 1996. He passed away on October 8, 1998. The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiff's death was caused by a pattern of negligent conduct on behalf of the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff's decedent suffered from malnutrition and dehydration. Further, the lawsuit alleged that he contracted infections and ultimately sepsis while under the care of the defendants. Following discovery the case was settled. The defendants deny liability. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Nummy vs. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, et al., CV 03-1688, Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. ($900,000 settlement)
A 13 year old boy suffered serious head injuries in an ATV (4-wheeler) accident. The boy was riding the ATV (Kawasaki Bayou 220) in a grassy field near his home. The area had two large mounds that had been built for motorcycle jumping and a couple of small bumps that had been built for ATV riding. The ATV flipped forward while the boy was riding it over the bumps in the field. Plaintiff contended that the Bayou 220 ATV is inherently unstable as designed and manufactured. Defendants denied that the ATV is unreasonably dangerous or defective and contended that the boy should not have been riding the ATV because he was under the age of 16 years at the time of the accident. The ATV contains warnings that it is not to be used by children under the age of 16 years. The defendants deny liability. The case settled for $900,000.
Morris vs. JVC Americas Corp., CV-04-PT-0389-M, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Confidential Settlement)
This case, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleged that a 15 month old child suffered devastating injuries when a JVC television fell from its placement on a small chest of drawers. The lawsuit alleged that the television was defective due to its lack of stability. The defendants denied all liability contending that the television was not defective; that the television met or exceeded all applicable standards; and that because there were no witnesses to the accident it was impossible to determine what caused the television and chest of drawers to fall. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
Disclaimer: Cross, Poole, Goldasich & Fischer,LLC does not offer any guarantee of case results. The cases mentioned in this site and the total amount of verdicts and settlements are illustrative of the enormous array of matters handled by the firm involving various areas of the law and are not an indication of future results. In many of the verdicts listed, plaintiffs either settled or obtained a modified award. These illustrations, though based upon cases handled by this office, are representative only and should not be viewed as an assurance of a particular result. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Every case is different and regardless of what others may say about the value of a particular case, each case must stand on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law.
