Personal Injury

The personal injury case of Cook v. City of San Diego concluded with a $75,000 out-of-court settlement.2 Plaintiff Rakewon Emmanuel Cook alleged that the City’s failure to maintain safe public property, despite having prior knowledge of a hazard, caused him serious injuries and resulting financial losses. The City had consistently denied wrongdoing and raised defenses, including the plaintiff's own negligence, but ultimately agreed to the payout to avoid the expense and uncertainty of a jury trial over the liability claims.

A civil lawsuit stemming from a 2021 traffic collision involving a Los Angeles Police Department employee concluded with a $460,000 settlement. Plaintiff Rosa Becerra sued the City of Los Angeles, the LAPD, and employee Yesenia Emestica, alleging negligence caused the crash that left her seriously injured and unable to work. Filed in March 2023, the case focused on the City’s liability under respondeat superior. After months of negotiation, the City Council approved the payout, finalizing the settlement in July 2024 and closing the case before trial.

Ashley Sanchez, a passenger in a car driven by Rogelio Aleman, sued Julie and Laura Spinelli, claiming that their reckless lane change caused a violent crash at the entrance to Andrea’s Plaza on Route 69. She also named Aleman and vehicle owner Julio Estrada-Sanchez as additional defendants. Sanchez argued that Julie Spinelli moved into an open lane to pass stopped traffic without checking for oncoming vehicles, while Aleman attempted a left turn across her path. The impact injured Sanchez, leading to neck, shoulder, and back sprains and months of medical care. At trial, Sanchez’s legal team presented medical records showing chiropractic, orthopedic, and imaging expenses totaling over $16,000. The defense countered that Aleman caused the crash by failing to yield and that Spinelli’s maneuver was lawful given traffic conditions. After deliberations, the jury found both drivers negligent—assigning 55% fault to Julie and Laura Spinelli and 45% fault to Aleman. They awarded $31,180.84 in total damages, including $16,180.84 in medical expenses and $15,000 for pain and suffering. After reducing the award based on Aleman’s share of fault, the court entered a final judgment of $17,149.46 in favor of Sanchez. The verdict marked a partial win for the plaintiff, recognizing the shared responsibility of both drivers while compensating Sanchez for her injuries and medical costs. The case highlighted the importance of safe lane changes and yielding during heavy morning traffic on Connecticut’s busy commuter routes.

In a personal injury trial concluding in September 2025 in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the defendants, Grandscape Professional Landscaping Service, Inc., and its employee, Armando Ortiz. The plaintiff, Gustavo Castellanos Caicedo, had sought damages exceeding $30,000.00 for severe injuries resulting from a 2021 collision involving his bicycle and a vehicle associated with the landscaping crew's work. The central question posed to the jury was whether Armando Ortiz's actions constituted negligence that legally caused the plaintiff's injuries. The jury explicitly answered "NO," concluding that Mr. Ortiz was not negligent. As a result, the jury's deliberations ended immediately, and no damages were calculated or awarded, confirming a complete defense victory against all claims, including the wife's derivative claim for loss of consortium.

A Santa Clara County jury found no negligence by driver Bruce Tran in a 2023 high-speed rear-end crash on Highway 101, ruling fully in favor of the defense. The plaintiffs, Ayron Romo, Elva Romo, and Ana Mendez, claimed severe injuries but failed to prove fault against Tran or vehicle owner Tonya Lien. The verdict, delivered on September 3, 2025, absolved all defendants of liability and closed the case without damages awarded.

A major lawsuit alleging catastrophic injury and governmental negligence in Los Angeles concluded with a significant $9.5 million settlement before the case reached a jury. Plaintiffs Jean Yuna Horihata and Mark Rappaport filed the lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and driver Luis Gaytan Hernandez following a severe traffic collision. Horihata sustained life-altering injuries in the crash. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident resulted from the driver’s careless operation of his vehicle and a dangerous condition on public property which the City of Los Angeles had failed to fix or warn the public about. The defense for the City of Los Angeles and the driver had initially denied all claims of wrongdoing, arguing that the roadway was reasonably safe and that their actions had not caused the tragedy. Despite their vigorous defense, the defendants agreed to the substantial payment, resolving all claims and avoiding a lengthy, high-stakes trial. The $9.5 million figure reflected the devastating nature of Horihata’s injuries and the considerable cost of her necessary lifelong care. The final settlement closed the case, formally known as Horihata, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., in the Superior Court of California.

The lawsuit of Gary Gellner v. Eric W. Gill and the Town of Glastonbury centered on a snowplow collision that occurred on Bayberry Road in Glastonbury, Connecticut, on February 1, 2021. Plaintiff Gary Gellner alleged that Town employee Eric Gill, operating a heavy 2013 International snowplow, unsafely backed the vehicle down a snowy hill after failing to drive up it, striking Gellner while he was operating a snow blower in his driveway. Gellner sought damages for injuries to his neck, shoulders, arms, chest, and back, arguing the driver was negligent and careless. The defendants, represented by Michael R. Oleyer, Esq., denied all claims of negligence and raised the crucial Special Defense of Governmental Immunity, asserting protection from liability under Connecticut law for actions related to governmental operations. After the proceedings, which concluded on October 10, 2025, the jury returned a verdict entirely in favor of the defendants, rejecting all claims of negligence and resulting in no award of damages for the plaintiff.

The personal injury case Roger Daigle v. Ashley Monick, et al. (AAN-CV19-6033189-S) concluded on October 3, 2025, with a defense verdict. Plaintiff Roger Daigle filed suit in 2019 following a March 2017 rear-end collision on Howe Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut, claiming the defendant, Ashley Monick, negligently struck his stopped vehicle and caused severe, lasting injuries requiring extensive medical care. The trial centered on the disparity between the plaintiff's claimed serious injuries and the low-impact nature of the crash. While Mr. Daigle's experts affirmed the injuries were a direct result of the trauma, the defense experts challenged this causation, suggesting the ailments were pre-existing or exaggerated. After several years of litigation and weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Ashley Monick, and against the plaintiff, Roger Daigle. This finding confirmed that Mr. Daigle had not successfully proven his claim of negligence, concluding the six-year legal battle with no damages awarded.

The personal injury case Terrance Brown v. Andrew Corazzini, et al. (NNH-CV24-6139139-S) concluded on September 24, 2025, with a defense verdict. Plaintiff Terrance Brown, a passenger injured during an August 2022 collision between a Connecticut Transit bus and a private vehicle on Broadway Street in New Haven, filed suit against the private vehicle’s owner and operator, Andrew and Chiara Corazzini. Mr. Brown alleged that the Corazzini driver's negligent operation caused the crash, which resulted in his serious and painful injuries. Throughout the trial, counsel for Mr. Brown, led by Frank P. Cirillo, presented expert testimony on crash reconstruction and medical causation, arguing for money damages of not less than $15,000.00. The defense, represented by Michael Quinlan, forcefully denied negligence and contested the severity and origin of the alleged injuries. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the Defendant, Corazzini, as against the Plaintiff, Terrance Brown. The finding confirmed that Mr. Brown had not met his legal burden to prove that the defendants' negligence caused his injuries.

The case, David Beri, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. 22STCV03744), involved a negligence claim filed in January 2022. Plaintiffs David and Eva Beri alleged that City employee Rochelle C. Feldman's careless driving while on the job caused a motor vehicle accident, resulting in significant physical injuries, emotional distress, and financial losses, including medical expenses and lost wages. The Beris sued the City under the theory of vicarious liability. The parties reached a final, out-of-court settlement agreement in December 2023 for $562,500, which resolved all claims. The City and the employee made the payment without admitting fault or liability.

Plaintiff Sylvia Rubio initiated a personal injury and property damage lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles and its Sheriff’s Department following a motor vehicle collision. The suit alleged negligence, careless conduct, and negligent entrustment related to the crash. Although the County vigorously denied responsibility in its formal answer, the case avoided a trial. The parties reached a final, unconditional settlement on June 5, 2024, resolving all claims for $425,000.

The case of Anthony Nonn v. The City of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. 23STCV01231) involved a personal injury claim against multiple governmental entities, including the City of Los Angeles and the State of California's Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Plaintiff Anthony Nonn filed the lawsuit in January 2023, asserting that dangerous and known conditions on a public roadway, which the defendants failed to correct or warn against, directly caused a traffic incident that left him with severe, life-altering injuries and substantial loss of income. The defendants strongly denied all claims of negligence and liability, arguing they lacked sufficient legal notice of the condition and that the plaintiff may have contributed to the accident. Both parties prepared for a jury trial, securing experts in accident reconstruction and medicine. However, the parties ultimately bypassed the courtroom, reaching a settlement in March 2025. The defendants agreed to pay Mr. Nonn a final negotiated amount of $3,000,000 to resolve all claims for past and future medical care, lost earnings, and general damages.