Tag Archive for: paul-flaherty

Superior Court Grants Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Action against City

/in

William T. DelHagen, Paul R. Flaherty and Adrian J. Barrio successfully represented the City of Moreno Valley and one of its employees, Mosallam Almasri, in a personal injury action brought by the employee of independent contractor Riverside Construction Company.

The city hired Riverside to perform storm drain improvements and street lane widening. The plaintiff, the superintendent of construction for Riverside, suffered debilitating injuries when he was struck by a truck operated by Cesar Rosales, an employee of the defendant and cross-complainant Pipeline Carriers, Inc. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was standing in the middle of the street, engaged in the task of performing pre-construction measurements. Mr. Almasri was on the scene at the time of the accident, but he did not direct the plaintiff’s activities in any way and was essentially an onlooker.

The plaintiff argued that the city and Mr. Almasri failed to ensure that Riverside and its employees, including the plaintiff, complied with applicable Cal-OSHA regulations pertaining to traffic control at or near the job site.

The Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino granted the city and Mr. Almasri’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of the “Privette” doctrine and the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seabright v. US Airways, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 590 (2011). The court found that, under Seabright, neither the city nor Mr. Almasri owed the plaintiff a duty of care to ensure workplace safety. The court noted that, by hiring an independent contractor, the city implicitly delegated to the contractor any tort law duty it owed to the contractor’s employee, the plaintiff, to ensure workplace safety. That implicit delegation included any tort law duty the city owed to the plaintiff to comply with applicable statutory or regulatory safety requirements.

In addition, the court found that the city did not “affirmatively contribute” to the plaintiff’s injuries and, further, that Mr. Almasri was immune from personal liability by virtue of his status as a public employee.

Verdict of the Week: Pltfs’ decedent caused plane crash, not hired pilot: defense

/in

Verdict Search California

Verdict         
Defense

Case 
Marsha Voorhis and Nathan Voorhis v. Thermal Self Serve Inc., Signature Flight Support Corporation, Million Air Interlink Inc.,    Million Air La Quinta, The County of Riverside, Cessna Aircraft Company, Deanna Webb and La Quinta FBO Two LLC, No. RIC451391

Court 
Superior Court of Riverside County, Riverside, CA

Judge
Gloria C. Trask

Date
11/12/2009

Plaintiff Attorney(s) 
Lawrence P. Grassini, Grassini & Wrinkle, L.C., Woodland Hills, CA

Defense Attorney(s) 
William T. DelHagen (lead), Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
Lisa D. Angelo, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
Paul R. Flaherty, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
Don G. Rushing, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA

Facts & Allegations     In March 2006, plaintiffs’ decedent Rick Voorhis, 53, perished in a plane crash in the Banning Pass between Los Angeles and Palm Springs that also killed a Cessna Aircraft Company pilot.  The Cessna pilot was a regional sales manager who brought the turbine-powered, single-engine utility airplane to the West Coast for demonstration to a series of customers.  Voorhis was in the left seat and the sales manager was in the right seat.  Voorhis was an outside sales representative specializing in that type of airplane.

Voorhis’s widow and son sued Cessna, Thermal Self Serve Inc., Signature Flight Support Corporation, Million Air Interlink Inc., Million Air La Quinta, the County of Riverside, Deanna Webb and La Quinta FBO Two LLC.  (Thermal Self Serve, Signature Flight, Million Air, Riverside County, Webb and La Quinta FBO were let ouf of the case prior to trial.  The case went to trial against Cessna.)

The plaintiffs alleged piloting negligence and strict products liability on the design of the aircraft, but they dropped all the claims except for piloting negligence.

Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the Cessna pilot was completely responsible for the flight’s failure because he filed the flight plan.  The lawyers also argued that an inability to handle icing conditions caused the plane to stall, spin and plummet to the ground.

Cessna argued that there was no ice accumulation.  The lawyers contended that Voorhis was controlling the plane and overreacted to danger warnings of approaching rising terrain from an onboard system and from air traffic controllers.  Voorhis became overcome by panic, they claimed, rolled the aircraft over, became disoriented in the weather conditions and flew into the ground.

Injuries/Damages death; loss of society
Voorhis lost his life.
His survivors — widow Marsha Voorhis and son Nathan Voorhis — asked the jury for $37 million in economic damages and $40 million in noneconomic damages for wrongful death.
Cessna contended that economic damages should be no more than $6 million.

Result
The jury found for the defense.

Demand  
$75,000,000, according to defense counsel

Offer
$5,000,000, statutory, according to defense counsel

Insurers    
Global Aerospace

Trial Details 
Trial Length: 6 weeks
Trial Deliberations:  70 minutes
Jury Vote: 11-1

Plaintiff Expert(s) 
Jay Rosenthal, M.A., C.C.M., meteorology/climatology, Pacific Palisades, CA
William E. Simpson, C.P.A., CPAs, Los Angeles, CA
Donald E. Sommer, aircraft, Denver, CO

Defense Expert(s)  
David E. Bloom, Ph.D., economics, Boston, MA
Terry Heaslip, flight plan reconstruction,
Tom Jordan, aviation, (commercial pilot)
Tommy McFall, pilot performance/error, Southlake, TX
Bob Rice, aviation, (flight test/icing)
Wayne Sand, weather, Boston, MA
Michael Selig, aerodynamics, Urbana, IL

Post-Trial
Motions for a new trial and JNOV were denied, but a motion to tax some costs was granted, according to defense counsel.

Editor’s Note
This report is based on informations that was provided by plaintiffs’ counsel and defense counsel.

Murchison & Cumming Elevates Two Attorneys In the Partnership Ranks: Product Liability Trial Attorneys Richard Moreno and Paul Flaherty

/in ,

LOS ANGELES -January 4, 2010 – Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that, effective January 1, 2010, Richard C. Moreno, Chair of the Transportation Liability Practice Group, will become a Senior Partner of the firm and Paul R. Flaherty will become an Associate Partner.

“These attorneys embody the core values of our firm,” said Jean M. Lawler, Managing Partner. ” Each is committed to his clients and each is an excellent trial attorney.”

Mr. Moreno focuses his practice in the areas of transportation, product liability, general liability, warranty liability, and the defense of utility companies, in wildland fire litigation. An experienced trial attorney respected for his in-depth case preparation, Mr. Moreno serves as lead counsel, along with firm Senior Partner Friedrich W. Seitz, in defending wildland fire lawsuits. These discovery-intensive, complex cases benefit greatly from Mr. Moreno’s acumen in liability and damage evaluation and efficient case management.

The defense of automotive, chassis, and truck manufacturers and dealerships in “lemon law” and other warranty claims is also a significant aspect of Mr. Moreno’s practice. He has obtained several defense verdicts for Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation, including one received in the company’s first case to go to verdict. Mr. Moreno specializes in the handling of catastrophic injury cases and has extensive trial experience in matters involving multiple wrongful deaths and quadriplegics.

A career-long attorney of Murchison & Cumming, Mr. Moreno earned his J.D. from Whittier College School of Law, where he was the recipient of the American Jurisprudence Award in Immigration Law and Criminal Law. Mr. Moreno was awarded his undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California.

Paul Flaherty has spent the past decade as an attorney with the firm. His practice emphasis is on defense of product liability, aviation and general tort lawsuits. Mr. Flaherty excels in cases involving complex mechanical and technical issues. The benefit of these skills was recently highlighted in a wrongful death trial involving a private plane crash which resulted in a defense verdict after a six-week trial. Mr. Flaherty is a graduate of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles and of California State University, Northridge.

 

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP

With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The Firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.

Murchison & Cumming Trial Attorney Leads Trial Defeating $77 Million Wrongful Death Claim Against Aircraft Company

/in

Jury Delivers Defense Verdict in 70 Minutes

Murchison & Cumming LLP is proud to announce the recent trial victory – an 11-1 defense verdict reached by the jury after only 70 minutes of deliberations following a six-week trial – that exonerated the manufacturer, owner, and second pilot of a turbine-powered single-engine utility airplane that crashed in the Banning Pass (between Los Angeles and Palm Springs) in March of 2006. Lead trial attorney was firm partner William T. DelHagen, who tried the case in the Superior Court, Riverside, Ca. along with Don G. Rushing of Morrison & Foerster in San Diego. He was assisted during pre-trial and the trial by Murchison & Cumming associates Paul R. Flaherty and Lisa D. Angelo.

“The plaintiffs thought they had a beautiful theory of liability but at trial it was mugged by a gang of ugly facts all pointing to the pilot error of the plaintiff’s decedent,” said Mr. DelHagen. Representing the plaintiffs was noted personal injury attorney Lawrence P. Grassini.

The decedent, flying the plane from the left seat, was an outside sales representative specializing in the type of plane involved. In the right seat was the company pilot, a regional sales manager who had brought the plane to the west coast for the salesman to demonstrate to a series of customers. The client manufacturer owned, maintained and operated the aircraft. The two pilots were the only occupants and both were killed instantly in the accident.

The lawsuit, heard before Judge Gloria Trask in Superior Court of California in the County of Riverside, alleged that inability to handle icing conditions caused the aircraft to stall, spin and plummet to the ground. The plaintiffs, the pilot’s surviving widow and adult son, claimed the company pilot was completely responsible for the flight’s failure because he filed the flight plan. At the end of the trial, they asked the jury to award $37 million in economic damages and $40 million in non-economic damages.

In the course of trial, the defense argued and decisively proved that there was no ice accumulation and skillfully presented evidence of pilot error. The defense team demonstrated that the decedent over-reacted to danger warnings of approaching rising terrain from an onboard system and from air traffic controllers. Mr. DelHagen and his co-counsel showed how the pilot became overcome by panic, rolled the aircraft over, became disoriented in instrument weather conditions and flew into the ground, killing himself and his colleague.

While the trial involved highly technical and complex fact patterns, the strength of the defense team’s evidentiary presentation is underscored by the jury’s 11-1 verdict, which was reached in just over an hour, on November 12, 2009.

Mr. DelHagen is a partner and a member of the Product Liability Practice Group of Murchison & Cumming, LLP. His successful practice focuses on product liability, aircraft, automotive, general and business litigation matters.

M&C Wins Dismissal at Trial for Major Aircraft Supplier Client

/in

William T. DelHagen, Paul R. Flaherty, and Lisa D. Angelo obtained a dismissal on behalf of their client, a major supplier of private aricraft in the U.S., on claims of breach of warranty and fraud at trial.

Plaintiff’s corporate businesses bought a single engine aircraft for personal use. The aircraft had a series of engine problems and was also subject to a special service program to strengthen a sheet metal component in the wing. At the conclusion of this warranty work, plaintiff signed releases of all claims. Several years later, the engine shuddered and experienced increased oil consumption. Plaintiff and his corporations sued the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer for breach of warranty and fraud, attempting to apply state and federal “lemon law” statutes to an aircraft transaction.

After contentious discovery proceedings revealed that plaintiffs’ tax treatment of the aircraft was incompatible with personal use of the aircraft, plaintiffs dismissed their state law warranty claim.  The aircraft manufacturer brought a Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal warranty and fraud causes of action, arguing the federal statutory warranty claim could stand absent a state law warranty claim and seeking to enforce the releases signed by plaintiffs at the conclusion of the prior warranty work. The Court denied this motion, as it did for a subsequent writ on these issues. The case proceeded to trial.

Nevertheless, the trial judge granted Motions in Limine excluding all evidence of the prior warranty work; thus, enforcing the releases. The judge also narrowed plaintiffs’ warranty case to the single issue of whether either defendant had guaranteed that the aircraft engine would operate for 2,000 hours, which was the recommended Time Between Overhaul interval. After these rulings, plaintiffs dismissed their case against M&C’s client for a waiver of costs.

Evidence of Botched Landing Ends Wrongful Death Action

/in

William T. DelHagen, Adrian J. Barrio, and Paul R. Flaherty recently won a Motion for Summary Judgment for their client, a major supplier of aircraft in the U.S., in a wrongful death action arising out of a plane crash that occurred on January 24, 2006, in which two pilots and two passengers died. The case was venued in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, before the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw.

The evidence revealed that two trained and qualified pilots botched a routine, good-weather landing to an uncontrolled airport, and then further botched the attempted go-around. These mistakes caused them to fly into an antenna array at the end of the runway and, ultimately, crash the plane into a concrete commercial building. M&C’s client filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, supported by various admissions of fact made by plaintiffs.

The Court found no evidence of negligence, or of product failure on the part of the aircraft manufacturer. Therefore, the Court entered judgment in favor of M&C’s client.

Defense Verdict In Wrongful Death Suit

/in

William T. DelHagen and Paul R. Flaherty of the firm’s Product Liability Group won a defense verdict in a wrongful death case arising from a single car rollover accident on I-5 near Fresno. Eric P. Weiss of the Law and Motion department provided essential support, including winning a critical Motion for Protective Order to protect the client’s trade secrets and confidential business information.

Plaintiff’s decedent, Charles Snyder, a charismatic young commercial banker, was returning to San Francisco from San Diego with a friend, Amber Cagle, at the wheel of his car. The left rear tire suffered an impact which caused the tire to fail several hundred miles later, while traveling between 80 and 90 miles per hour. The driver over-corrected, causing the vehicle to leave the road and roll several times, inflicting fatal injuries on decedent Snyder.

Decedent’s parents, James and Margaret Snyder, sued Winston Tire Company, which allegedly sold the tire; The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, which manufactured the tire, and the driver, Amber Cagle, alleging causes of action in strict products liability and negligence. When plaintiffs proved unable to articulate an independent negligence claim against Winston, Goodyear assumed Winston’s defense.

After protracted discovery disputes, the matter proceeded to trial solely on a manufacturing defect theory. At trial, plaintiffs’ expert alleged that the tire’s steel belts were not correctly located within the tire and that the rubber under the tread area as too thin, causing the tire to fail to survive an ordinary impact. Goodyear presented evidence that the tire met the applicable manufacturing tolerances and that the construction of the tire was not related to its failure. Instead, the impact on the tire experienced was so severe that it visibly damaged the aluminum rim and breached the inner liner of the tire, ultimately causing the tire to fail.

The jury deliberated almost four days before returning a defense verdict.

Dental Supplies Company Dismissed from Product Liability Suit

/in

Guy R. Gruppie, Gina E. Och and Paul R. Flaherty recently obtained an early dismissal in a multi-party toxic tort case where a former dental patient alleged that exposure to mercury contained in amalgam fillings caused him to suffer various illnesses and permanent personal injury.

Murchison & Cumming represented Den-Mat Corp., which along with approximately 50 other defendants, was alleged to have manufactured and/or distributed the allegedly defective product.

Pursuant to the terms of pleadings and discovery orders made by the Complex Case division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Den-Mat was able to obtain an early partial dismissal of certain causes of action set forth in the multi-count complaint, and then establish that it could not have played a role in manufacture or distribution of the mercury-containing product.

Only one deposition had taken place by the time plaintiff agreed to dismiss Den-Mat in lieu of a motion for summary judgment.

Experts Agree that Epson Printer was Not Cause of Mysterious Fire Loss

/in

In a subrogation action arising out of a mysterious fire loss, Epson America, the manufacturer of electronic office equipment was sued by USAA for recovery of approximately $55,000 that USAA had paid to its insured on its claim.

After exchange of initial discovery, the parties agreed to permit each of their electrical engineering experts to inspect the equipment on the loss premises, in particular the printer made by Epson, to determine if physical evidence existed to suggest it was the source of an electrical fire. It was agreed that if such evidence existed, Epson would pay the damages claimed by USAA. However, if the printer box demonstrated no signs of fire origin, it was agreed that USAA would dismiss its suit in exchange for a waiver of costs and attorneys fees, with no further discovery.

After some negotiations regarding the inspection protocol, the inspection took place. The printer box was virtually pristine – meaning that Epson won the gamble and the case.

Epson America was represented by Guy R. Gruppie and Paul R. Flaherty of the firm’s Los Angeles office. Mr. Flaherty developed the testing protocol and worked closely with Epson’s expert to help obtain this excellent result.