Cases
We are experienced in representing both individuals and businesses in
cases that present complex technical issues as well as diverse injury
and economic loss claims. Below please find a partial list of some of
the cases we have handled for our clients.
Trial Results
Wrongful Death Santa Barbara Superior Court, Santa Maria, CA.
Death of a minor thrown
from the bed of a pick-up truck while traveling on a private road. Plaintiffs
alleged improper road design, signage and failure to implement speed-reducing
features such as speed-bumps. Jury returned verdict for client property
owner less than one hour after beginning deliberations. (Note: Case resulted
in change to California law prohibiting unrestrained persons from traveling
in cargo bed of pick-up trucks.)
Santa Barbara Superior Court, Santa Barbara, CA.
Death of a minor on
a construction site. Plaintiffs alleged that a “truss-boom” had
been negligently left in a dangerous location and became dislodged, falling
on minor decedent. Plaintiffs accepted client’s previously extended
settlement offer as Christopher Bagnaschi approached podium to deliver
closing argument.
Return to Top Products Liability
Riverside Superior Court, Riverside, CA.
Grocery store employee injured
allegedly as a result of a defectively designed walk-behind forklift.
Double knee replacement. Plaintiff claimed that the forklift should have
incorporated some type of overhead protective device to protect operator
from falling cargo. Client claimed that walk-behind forklifts are exempted
from such design features since the operator can move about the machine
180 degrees. Such a requirement would render the highly maneuverable
forklift obsolete. Judgment for client.
Santa Barbara Superior Court, Santa Barbara, CA.
Day laborer injured
when forklift rolled into him after brakes allegedly failed. Post-accident
testing on forklift showed that mechanical parking brake was indeed out
of adjustment but that a retrofitted “line-lock” brake was
indeed operational. Client rented forklift to business that hired injured
plaintiff who also alleged forklift was defective. Client contended that
brakes did not fail but that the renter failed to set the “line-lock” brake
after being instructed to do so upon taking possession of the forklift.
Client therefore asserted a claim for express contractual indemnity against
renter on the grounds that the accident was caused by the renter’s
failure to properly set the brakes. Jury found both client and renter
negligent but no causation against client. The jury found causation
against the renter who had previously settled with
the Plaintiff for a nominal sum.
Accordingly, Plaintiff received nothing from the verdict. Moreover, the
Court enforced the express indemnity provision against the renter and
awarded over $80,000.00 in attorney fees and costs in favor of client.
Santa Barbara Superior Court, Santa Barbara, CA.
Plaintiff construction
worker sustained serious facial injuries when chainsaw he was using experienced “kickback” and
struck his face. Plaintiff alleged that client had performed an improper
sharpening of the chain rendering it too aggressive for normal use and
had failed to inform his employer that an “anti-kickback” safety
feature had been disabled. Client alleged that the sole cause of accident
was plaintiff employer’s failure to properly instruct and train
the plaintiff who had never used a chainsaw before. Plaintiff was attempting
a type of cut (plunge-cut) that carried a high risk of kickback.
Because Plaintiff was untrained in the operation of chainsaws he could
not appreciate the danger he was in or that his chainsaw had a disabled
safety feature. Jury returned a verdict for client.
Return to Top Premises Liability
Los Angeles Superior Court, Burbank, CA.
Plaintiff was a patron at a
local, well know amusement park when she allegedly injured her shoulder
(requiring surgery) when she entered a darkened slide at the end of a “fun-house” style
attraction. She contented that the attraction had been improperly designed
and failed to meet Uniform Building Code standards. Client contended
that the conditions Plaintiff encountered were part of the attraction
and integral to a “thrills and chills” type of display. Moreover,
Plaintiff had the option of not going down the darkened slide and could
have gone down a flight of stairs---an option exercised by others in
her party. The jury returned a verdict for the client in less than one
hour.
Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, CA.
Plaintiff was a dentist who claimed that poor roof maintenance by Defendant shopping center caused a waterlogged ceiling tile to fall, striking her on the head and causing her to fall to the ground injuring the ulnar nerve of her dominant hand and permanently preventing her from resuming her career as a dentist. We cross examined and impeached the plaintiff's key fact witness so thoroughly, revealing a pattern and practice of fraudulent behavior, that the witness fled the court in the middle of his cross-examination and never returned. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Return to Top Construction
Los Angeles Superior Court, Norwalk, CA.
Plaintiff pipe-fitter sustained
third degree burns to the soles of his feet after standing upon a structure
containing molten glass. Plaintiff contended that client was negligent
for failing to “freeze” the structure until the repair work
plaintiff was performing was completed. Judge arguably committed reversible
error in allowing plaintiff to introduce certain evidence. Accordingly,
Plaintiff agreed to a “high-low” agreement during jury deliberations
on condition that client waive all appeal rights. Jury returned a net
verdict that was less than had been demanded.
Return to Top General Negligence
$124,260.00 Verdict in Nail Salon Negligence Case
Christopher Bagnaschi obtained a verdict for his client following a three-week trial in Ventura County, California. Mr. Bagnaschi’s client had received an infection following a puncture to her fingertip with an unsanitary nail tool during a routine nail procedure. The wound became infected by an antibiotic resistant form of Staph Aureus known as MRSA. Mr. Bagnaschi proved that the nail salon had been negligent in its disinfection practices and procedures and also demonstrated to the jury the existence of a disturbing history of past violations of Barbering & Cosmetology regulations. In a very complex case that involved expert testimony from infectious disease specialists, cardiologists and orthopedic surgeons, the jury found the nail salon negligent on three separate counts of negligence (general negligence, premises liability and negligence per se); that its negligence resulted in the Plaintiff contracting the MRSA; and that the plaintiff had received $124,260.00 in damages.
Los Angeles Superior Court, Van Nuys, CA.
Plaintiff alleged that client’s
employee negligently backed his work truck into him, knocking him to
the ground and breaking his hip. Client alleged that Plaintiff was intoxicated
and unable to move out of the way of the slowly moving vehicle. Jury
awarded plaintiff an amount that client had been willing to pay to settle
the case prior to the commencement of trial.
Return to Top |
Print
Page