Tag Archive for: russell-wollman

Jury Rejects $12 Million Demand Against M&C Client

/in

Following a five-week trial in plaintiff-friendly San Bernardino County Superior Court, a defense verdict was reached in a case involving a boat crash on the Colorado River. Partners Russell S. Wollman and Todd A. Chamberlain of Murchison & Cumming represented the boat manufacturer. Congratulations also to Darin W. Flagg, Senior Associate, for his law and motion contributions to the trial victory.

The incident occurred when the driver of the power boat lost control at speeds between 60 and 80 miles per hour, resulting in the loss of control upon hitting a wave. Subsequently, the boat nosedived, causing it to come apart in the front and eject the plaintiff into the water, resulting in a fracture to his thoracic spine.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit citing negligence on the part of the boat driver and alleging negligence and certain product liability against the boat itself. The plaintiff sought substantial compensation, totaling $12 million dollars.

After a thorough deliberation period lasting five days, the jury returned with a defense verdict, finding no fault on the part of either defendant. The plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed, and no damages have been awarded.

Defense Verdict in Favor of Property Management Company

/in

A Van Nuys jury issued a 12-0 verdict in favor of a property management company, represented by attorney Russell S. Wollman of Murchison & Cumming, LLP.

Plaintiffs alleged a HVAC unit installed on their condominium roof top caused excessive noise and vibration resulting in injuries and damages. They sued the management company that hired the company who installed the air conditioning unit directly on top of plaintiff’s roof. They also sued the homeowners association. They alleged negligence, negligence per se (violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Court Ordinance) and nuisance. They asked the jury for $3.8 million for loss of enjoyment of life, loss of enjoyment of home, mental stress, loss of sleep, nervousness, uncontrollable body vibrations, and hearing loss.

Defense Verdict in High Profile Case

/in

A jury returned a defense verdict in a case where the plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently rendered assistance. The defense was represented by Murchison & Cumming attorneys Russell S. Wollman and Nanette G. Reed.

This case arises from an accident that occurred in 2012. The incident occurred at a condominium complex which is sometimes referred to as the “High Rise to the Stars” as many celebrities currently live there and there have been many celebrities who have resided at in the past. One of the plaintiffs resided at the condominiums and her daughter, the additional plaintiff, was her guest. In 2012 the daughter allegedly fainted and hit her head after working out.

A relative spoke to the daughter via telephone while she was in the locker room. The relative was concerned and summoned a security guard who came and checked on her condition. He offered to call 911 on two occasions. She refused and told him she wanted to go to her mother’s unit. When she started to go to her mother’s unit the security guard decided to escort her to the unit. When they arrived at the unit the guard turned his back to her and she fell for some unknown reason. She suffered facial fractures which required surgery and alleged chronic pain as a result of this incident.

The daughter brought a lawsuit for her personal injuries and economic damages and the mother brought a lawsuit for payment of a portion of her daughter’s medical bills. Plaintiff alleged the condominium’s security guard negligently rendered care which caused the injury. The condominium alleged that the security guard acted reasonably and within the standard of care for a security guard.

Plaintiff’s last demand before trial was $2,000,000. Defense’s last offer was $100,000 (by way of 998).

The jury returned an 11-1 verdict in favor of the Homeowner’s Association in less than 25 minutes.

Defense Verdict and Appellate Decision Won in Business Litigation Matter

/in

A defense verdict won by Russell S. Wollman and German A. Marcucci was argued by Edmund G. Farrell, III in the Appellate Court and upheld. The case arose from allegations that the defendant, an electronic wholesaler, breached a sales contract and committed fraud.

The defendant is in the business of brokering used video games and used electronic devices associated with video games. The plaintiff refurbishes and resells these used products.

The defendant sold various used video games and used electronic products to the plaintiff by way of an online auction. The plaintiff received 24 pallets of these games and video devices from the defendant on an “as is” basis, without inspection, at an over cost of $300,000. Upon receipt of these products, the plaintiff believed that they were of lower quality than expected. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging that the wholesaler breached the sale contract and fraudulently concealed the condition of the products. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant committed fraud by not disclosing that the source of the goods was one of the plaintiff’s competitors, contending that the purchase would not have been made had this information been disclosed.

The case proceeded to a three-day bench trial where the judge found that the defendant did not breach the “as is” contract. The judge also found that the defendant did not commit fraud by not disclosing the source of the goods.

The plaintiff appealed the judgment, contending that the court erred in its findings, but the appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings, indicating that there was substantial evidence to support the decision, and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant.

Defense Verdict for Major Gas Station Client

/in

Russell S. Wollman received a favorable verdict in a personal injury and premises liability case.

The plaintiff stopped at the defendant’s Santa Ana, California gas station after hours, and paid for gas at the night box. After pumping gas in her vehicle, she returned to the night box to collect change from the gas station attendant. The plaintiff claimed that the attendant refused to give her any change and then repeatedly slammed the plaintiff’s fingers in the night box. The attendant denied the allegations, claiming that the plaintiff injured her hand while banging on the window and surrounding area near the cash drawer.

The plaintiff sustained deep lacerations and received medical attention at a local hospital emergency room, but now has permanently deformed fingers. After a four-day trial, the jury found the gas station owner not liable, the gas station attendant 20% liable and the plaintiff 80% liable. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of about $2,750. Mr. Wollman successfully defendedthe case without the benefit of a trial witness, as the attendant was unavailable during the trial.

The defendant filed a motion to reduce the awarded damages further, but the matter was ultimately resolved favorably between the parties, with the plaintiff settling for $1,000.

German A. Marcucci assisted with law and motion work.

Summary Judgment Granted in Case Involving Assault

/in

Russell S. Wollman and Maria A. Starn won a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case involving assault. Plaintiff, a professional truck driver, filed a suit against defendant, the owner and operator of a truck stop, for the alleged failure to provide adequate security on the premises to prevent his being assaulted. Plaintiff claimed that while walking his dog on the property, he was struck on the back of the head by unknown assailant(s) and knocked unconscious. Plaintiff claimed significant personal injuries, including brain injury and resultant loss of earnings in excess of $200,000.

In support of plaintiff’s claim that the alleged assault was reasonably foreseeable, thereby imposing a duty on defendant to provide additional security measures, plaintiff produced police records evidencing numerous reports of prior criminal activity on the premises and officer testimony that truck stops, in general, are known for being high crime facilities.

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff was assaulted on the premises; (2) assuming assault, defendant did not owe a duty to provide additional security measures in the absence of prior similar incidents of assault; and (3) plaintiff could not prove what, if any, additional security measures would have prevented the alleged assault from occurring.

On July 17, 2009, the Kern County Superior Court granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff was injured by violent assault and battery; (2) assuming assault, the admissible evidence did not support reasonable foreseeability so as to give rise to a duty to provide additional security; and (3) plaintiff could not establish causation of injury as a result of an alleged lack of security.

Jury Unanimously Rejects Judge’s $21 Million Personal Injury Suit

/in

A Van Nuys jury on Friday rejected U.S. District Judge George P. Schiavelli’s claim that he was entitled to $21 million in damages resulting from severe injuries that he sustained in an alleged escalator accident at an Encino shopping center.

A nine-woman, three-man panel took less than two hours to determine that Peppy LLC was not negligent in its operation/maintenance of its escalators and that Schiavelli has simply lost his footing and fell in the August 12, 2005 mishap at the Encino Shopping Center.

“I am very gratified for this verdict because it truly represents the evidence, and the jury was able to see the evidence accurately without concern that the plaintiff happened to be a respected judge,” said Peppy attorney Russell S. Wollman, a partner in Los Angeles-based Murchison & Cumming. “My client’s escalators functioned perfectly on the day of Judge Schiavelli’s accident.”

Browne Greene, attorney for the former Superior Court Judge who was appointed to the federal bench in 2004 by President Bush, had asked the jury to award his client millions in damages for medical bills, lost earnings, impaired future earnings and pain and suffering.

Schiavelli claimed that damage to his knees, back and shoulder were such that his ability to secure lucrative pay later in his legal career as a private judge was threatened. He attended only part of the trial with use of a walker, necessitated by recent knee surgery that he claimed was required because of the incident.

Defense Verdict Granted in Premises Liability Action

/in

Russell S. Wollman, Pamela J. Marantz and Tina Varjian successfully defended a premises liability case involving a slip and fall accident occurring at an Inn.

Plaintiff allegedly slipped on a piece of loose carpeting and, falling down two flights of stairs and injuring his shoulder, knee and back.  Plaintiff claimed he required surgery on his right shoulder, neck and left knee due to the fall.  His medical expenses totalled $10,000 and estimated future medical expenses would total $50,000 to $75,000.  Plaintiff claimed that the Inn should have known about the dangerous condition and fixed the problem.

The case was defended on two theories: (1) that plaintiff did not offer any notice of the alleged accident and; (2) the alleged incident probably did not occur.  During the trial, a witness testified that she had seen plaintiff lay down at the top of the stairs just prior to this accident occurring.

The defense presented medical records proving that plaintiff’s knee, shoulder, neck and back injuries existed prior to the alleged incident.  Plaintiff also testified that he had never made a claim before this accident and had never been on disability.  Records were uncovered, which showed that plaintiff had been on disability multiple times prior to this incident and filed prior worker’s compensation claims.

The jury, in a 10-2 decision, determined that there was no notice of a dangerous condition.

Russell Wollman Elected Director of USLAW

/in ,

Russell S. Wollman, a partner at Murchison & Cumming, LLP, has been elected to serve on the USLAW Network’s Board of Directors. As a member of the 17-person board, Mr. Wollman will help facilitate the future growth of the organization through expanded educational programming, networking opportunities and member recruitment.

Mr. Wollman is an experienced trial attorney who specializes in handling complex litigation involving insurance law, bad faith and a wide variety of general liability claims. Mr. Wollman has been active in USLAW since it’s founding in 2001 and is a member of the organization’s Retail Practice Group.

USLAW Network is an organization of independent law firms with offices throughout the United States. Through USLAW, these firms share information in order to enhance the speed, efficiency and quality of legal services provided to each member’s clients. By sharing this information, USLAW firms provide high quality legal services, without unnecessary expense to the client.

 

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. The firm is a member of the USLAW Network. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.

Nonsuit Granted in Breach of Settlement Agreement

/in

In a breach of settlement agreement case brought by a lawyer and his law firm, Russell S. Wollman and Barbara McCully successfully moved for nonsuit after plaintiffs’ opening statement, which is rarely granted.

McCully and Wollman brought a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the written settlement agreement and any other written or oral communications made by the parties during the mediation based on Evidence Code section 1119, stating that evidence of anything said or any writing prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation is inadmissible.

Section 1119 can be overcome if all mediation participants agreed in writing or orally to disclose communications or if there was a binding settlement agreement signed by all participants for the purpose of showing fraud, duress or illegality on an issue.

It was undisputed that the parties executed a Confidentiality Agreement at the mediation, specifically outlining all communications during the course of the mediation were confidential, not subject to discovery, and could not be introduced into evidence.

Unable to show a statutory exception, plaintiffs contended three things. First, defendants were judicially estopped from claiming the protection afforded by section 1119 because defendants had brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings on grounds different than the inadmissibility of the settlement agreement. Secondly, defendants had waived the protection afforded by section 1119 when they referred to the settlement agreement in an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to section 1119. Lastly, plaintiff felt these issues should be determined by the jury.

The court agreed with defendants that because estoppel and waiver are equitable doctrines, they were properly determined by the court, not a jury.

The court also agreed with defendants on the issue of waiver, finding that merely because defendants authenticated the settlement and confidentiality agreement in the motion for summary judgment and had not waived the protection of section 1119. See for example, Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 85 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1107 (2000) (waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right; burden is on party claiming waiver to prove it by clear and convincing evidence).

The court further agreed that defendants were not judicially estopped by virtue of their prior motion for judgment on the pleadings because the defenses were not inconsistent.

Based on the above, the court granted defendants’ motion in limine and precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of the written settlement agreement and any communications made during the mediation.

Plaintiffs made their opening statement and Wollman moved for nonsuit on the ground that plaintiffs could not present any substantial, admissible evidence to support a verdict for plaintiffs under a breach of contract theory and that plaintiffs could not establish that a contract had been entered into by the parties. After giving plaintiffs the opportunity to reopen their case and plaintiffs’ counsel’s admission that he had no admissible evidence upon which to proceed, the court granted defendants’ nonsuit.