Jurimatic: Verdicts and Settlements

In the case of Riggins, Deloris vs. Finch, David et al. (Case No. 2021-CA-008187-O), the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida addressed a significant premises liability claim stemming from an incident at a Walmart Neighborhood Market in Orlando. On August 4, 2020, the Plaintiff, Deloris Riggins, tripped over a floor mat in the produce section, resulting in permanent bodily injuries and the aggravation of pre-existing conditions. The litigation centered on whether Walmart and its store manager breached their duty of care by failing to secure the rug or warn customers of the hazard. While the defense argued the danger was "open and obvious" and attributed the injuries to pre-existing health issues, the jury reached a unanimous verdict on September 19, 2025. Although the jury calculated total damages at $1,698,000—including $1.2 million for future medical expenses—they apportioned 70% of the fault to the Plaintiff under Florida’s comparative negligence rules. Consequently, the final judgment ordered Walmart Stores East, LP to pay a reduced sum of $509,400, highlighting the critical impact of fault apportionment in personal injury litigation.

On August 3, 2022, Sherlette Duncan traveled as a passenger on a city bus heading northbound on Broadway Street in New Haven. The trip took a violent turn when a BMW, operated by Chiara Corazzini, collided with the bus while attempting to parallel park. Duncan alleged that the impact caused her body to jerk and twist, resulting in debilitating injuries to her lower back and legs, including sciatica and a misalignment of her spinal discs. Duncan subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut Transit District Consortium and the owners of the BMW, claiming the bus driver failed to maintain a safe lookout and that the transit authority breached its duty to provide the highest degree of care to its passengers. The defense countered by questioning the specific involvement of the transit district and the extent of the negligence alleged. After a full trial in the New Haven Superior Court, the jury found in favor of the Defendants, concluding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the monetary damages she sought for her medical expenses and pain and suffering.

In a significant victory for small business owners, a California jury awarded Stella Ferreira Fróes, owner of Pikanhas Restaurant Group, over $1.5 million in damages against ROC Funding Group, LLC. The case (MSC21-01827) centered on a "loan consolidation" agreement that carried a hidden 69.9% interest rate. Despite Fróes’s compliance, ROC utilized a "Judgment by Confession" in New York to freeze her accounts and shutter her operations. The jury found ROC liable for usury and abuse of process, awarding $1.125 million in punitive damages to penalize the company's malicious and fraudulent conduct.

On July 27, 2020, Khristian Mairena traveled through a Miami-Dade intersection when a vehicle owned by the City of Homestead struck his car. Mairena filed a negligence lawsuit against the municipality, alleging that the city's driver operated the vehicle carelessly, leading to permanent bodily injuries, mental anguish, and significant medical expenses. The City of Homestead defended the claim by arguing that Mairena was partially at fault for the accident and had failed to mitigate his damages. Following a trial in October 2025, a jury determined the City was 70% liable for the crash. Although the jury calculated total damages at $370,000.00—covering past medical bills and pain and suffering—the Court reduced the final recovery to $259,000.00 to reflect Mairena’s 30% share of negligence.

In Herold Hinds and Jacqueline Hinds v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a Florida jury held the state-backed insurer liable for a plumbing failure at a Miramar residence. Despite the homeowners reporting the accidental water discharge nearly six months after the event, the jury determined that the delay did not prejudice the company's investigation. The verdict, delivered in January 2026, awarded the plaintiffs $33,557.45 in total damages, overcoming the insurer's defense that the repair estimates were excessive and the evidence was discarded prematurely.

What started as a commission dispute between a Connecticut public adjusting firm and its former adjuster ended with a Jury delivering a sweeping verdict in that adjuster's favor in January 2026. Juliana R. Castro claimed The Public's Adjuster, LLC owed her earned commissions and then spent months trying to destroy her career after letting her go. The firm, which had its own grievances — including allegations that Castro deleted its Facebook account and poached its clients — left the Courtroom with just $10. The verdict drew a sharp line between a company's right to protect its business and the obligations it owes the people who built it.

On December 21, 2023, Jacqueline Hogan was walking on Moss Farm Road in Cheshire, Connecticut, when she slipped and fell on a snowy and icy surface. She suffered a fractured left ankle along with injuries to her back and leg. Hogan filed a lawsuit against the Town of Cheshire, claiming the municipality breached its statutory duty to maintain the roadway under C.G.S. § 13a-149. She alleged the town failed to salt, sand, or inspect the area properly despite knowing the hazards. The Town of Cheshire denied all allegations of negligence. In its defense, the town argued it was protected by governmental immunity for discretionary actions. Additionally, the town claimed Hogan was responsible for her own injuries because she failed to pay attention to her surroundings or take reasonable care for her safety while walking in winter conditions. After a trial in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Town of Cheshire on January 23, 2026.

The legal battle between Jaylynn Dean and Uber Technologies concluded with a landmark $8.5 million verdict that redefines the responsibility of ride-sharing platforms. Ms. Dean sued the tech giant following a 2023 incident in Arizona where an Uber driver kidnapped and sexually assaulted her. While the jury cleared Uber of direct negligence regarding its background check processes and app design, they held the company accountable through "apparent agency." This means the jury believed Uber presented itself in a way that led Ms. Dean to reasonably believe the driver was an official representative of the company. The ruling serves as a significant bellwether for thousands of similar cases pending in the national sexual assault litigation against the company.

Following a slip and fall on a shed entrance ramp in Bristol, Connecticut, Steven MacDougall filed a personal injury lawsuit against Michael MacDougall. The plaintiff alleged that a slippery substance had accumulated on the ramp, causing him to suffer a displaced forearm fracture, a concussion, and permanent nerve damage. In response, the defense argued that the injuries resulted from the plaintiff's own inattentiveness and failure to use reasonable care. After weighing the evidence of premises maintenance against the special defense of comparative negligence, a New Britain jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Michael MacDougall, on February 6, 2026.

Anthony Harris, Elijah Mayorga, and Limmie Propps led a representative action against RL Liquidators, LLC, alleging systemic violations of the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs contended that the liquidation company failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, neglected to provide mandated meal and rest periods, and issued inaccurate wage statements to its hourly workforce. While RL Liquidators denied all allegations of wrongdoing, the parties ultimately reached a $500,000 global settlement. Approved by the Sacramento County Superior Court in October 2024, the settlement provided significant civil penalties to the State of California and recovery for the aggrieved employees, resolving claims spanning from June 2021 through February 2024.

Alexander Charles and Henry Mulak challenged Varsity Tutors LLC’s business model, arguing that the company’s "Independent Contractor Agreement" was a legal workaround to avoid paying overtime and travel expenses. The tutors alleged they spent significant unpaid hours navigating California traffic and preparing materials without compensation. While the company defended its practices by citing tutor flexibility, the litigation exposed the high risks of misclassifying gig-economy workers. After years of legal maneuvering over arbitration clauses, the parties reached a $2 million settlement to resolve claims involving over 500 California-based tutors.

Christina Abdelmalak, a former employee of Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC (doing business as West Anaheim Medical Center), initiated a representative legal action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The lawsuit alleged that the healthcare facility systematically failed to compensate non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including mandatory off-the-clock COVID-19 health screenings. Furthermore, the Plaintiff contended that heavy workloads led to chronic missed meal and rest periods, and that the company failed to properly calculate overtime rates by excluding non-discretionary bonuses. To avoid the rising costs of a prolonged legal battle, both parties agreed to a $1,835,000 settlement, which received final Court approval in early 2026.