Texas Trucking Accident Lawyers Case Summaries

6th Biggest Verdict in a Workplace Safety Case (Oilfield Accident Death Case) in Texas in 2009

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court:                   In the 4th Judicial District Court of Rusk County, Texas   

Civil Action No.:  CAUSE NO.: 2006-036

Judge:                  Honorable J. Clay Gossett

Mediator:            Richard Grainger, Tyler, Texas

Style:            CAUSE NO. 2006-036: Alicia Williams, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jerron Williams v. Smith International, Inc. and Lynn Jones; Intervenor, Michelle Gilbert, as Next Friend of Joshua Williams v. Smith International, Inc.,(“Smith”) Lynn Jones and Martex Drilling Company, LLP. (“Martex”)

Verdict Date:    May 19, 2009

Type of Case:    Wrongful Death and Survival Claims

Name of Person Submitting Case: Daryl L. Derryberry

Plaintiff’s Attorney(s):    Randy Roberts
Roberts & Roberts
118 W. Fourth Street
Tyler, Texas 75701

Intervenor's Attorney(s): Daryl L. Derryberry (AAJ Member)
Derryberry & Zips, P.L.L.C.
100 E. Ferguson St., Suite 1212
Tyler, Texas 75702

Mark Mann
The Mann Firm
300 W. Main St.
Henderson, Texas 75652

John C. Bush (AAJ Member)
Bush Law Firm
6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1201
Dallas, Texas 75206

Intervenor, Texas Mutual Insurance Company’ Attorney:
Kyle Kutch
Kutch Law Firm
211 E. Tyler, Suite 600-G
Longview, Texas 75601

Defendant, Martex Attorneys:
James W. Grau and Chris Lingwall
Grau-Koen, P.C.
2711 N. Haskell Ave, Suite 2000
Dallas, Texas 75204

Defendant, Martex Attorneys:
Bo Berry and Deb Junek
The Berry Firm, PLLC
Market-Ross Place
1701 Market Street, Suite 320, LB 41
Dallas, Texas 75202

Guardian Ad Litem:   
Clay Wilder
Wilder & Wilder
Henderson, Texas

Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Contentions:

This case involves an accident that occurred on the floor of an oil rig in East Texas. The accident occurred when some oil field tools that were needed on the rig floor were being moved from the ground to the rig floor. Jeron Williams was employed by Martex, which was the entity that was drilling the well. Martex contacted a specialty contractor, Smith, to come to the well to fish the piece of equipment that was stuck down in the hole that was being drilled. Smith sent one “fishing supervisor”, Jones, to supervise the fishing operation.

Jeron Williams was killed as a result of an incident that occurred during the early morning hours of December 27, 2005. The incident occurred when a chain that had been tied onto the fishing jar slipped off the jar as it was being moved from the ground to the rig floor. One of Martex’s floor hand’s testified that Smith’s fishing supervisor, Jones, instructed him to tie a “double half hitch” onto the fishing jar with a chain that was attached to an air hoist. The air hoist was then used to hoist the fishing jar down a catwalk (an area about a foot off the ground and approximately 40 50 feet long that leads up to a chute), up an open chute that looks like a slide called the V-door and onto the rig floor. As the fishing jar cleared the V-door and was on the rig floor Mr. Williams approached the fishing jar and placed his shoulder against the fishing jar in an apparent attempt to help guide it to its final resting place. None of Martex’s employees were in a position to hear whether Jones warned Mr. Williams. However, Mr. Williams did not move away from the jar. The chain slipped off of the jar and, according to the testimony of Jones, Mr. Williams appeared to believe he could keep the approximate 1,200 lb fishing jar from falling to the rig floor. The fishing jar landed on Mr. Williams killing him. Mr. Williams was a “trainee” at the time of the incident and had only been on the job for 6-7 days and had no prior experience working in the oilfield before being employed by Martex.

Jones’s sole job was to supervise the fishing operation. Jones had been employed by Smith for approximately seven (7) months at the time of the incident. Jones was represented to be a “fishing supervisor” and Smith charged Martex $1,085 per day for the services of Jones.

Jones arrived at the well location at around 1 pm on December 26, 2005. One of the tools that was ordered by Smith and delivered to the well site was a crossover sub that could have easily been screwed into the threaded end of the fishing jar so that one of Martex’s lifting eyes could be attached to the fishing jar. The lifting eye would have allowed a chain to be securely attached through the lifting eye so that the fishing jar could be safely hoisted to the rig floor by an air hoist. A chain would not have to have been tied to the slick fishing jar in order to move it from the ground to the rig floor. It is undisputed that if a lifting eye had been used in connection with the movement of the fishing jar from the ground to the rig floor that this incident would NOT have occurred. In fact, the testimony at trial by Martex employees was that Jones used the cross over sub and screwed it into the fishing tools when the tools were lowered to the ground after the job was completed. The movement of the tools from the rig to the ground floor was done without any problems. 

Jones arrived at the well location and, after briefly talking to one or two of Martex’s supervisors, went to his truck and took a nap because the fishing operation was not ready to begin. The evidence is that approximately 10-12 hours lapsed between the time Jones arrived at the scene and the time the fishing operation began. It is also undisputed that the types of things that would have been discussed at this safety meeting would have been the process to be used in moving the tools from the ground to the rig floor, including the fact that a tool (crossover sub) was available at the well location and was available to be used to screw into the fishing jar so that a lifting eye could be used to move the fishing jar.

Smith contends that Martex was in charge of moving the tools Smith ordered and had delivered to the well location from the ground to the rig floor. According to Smith, Martex is in control of moving the tools to be used by Smith in the fishing operation. Smith contends that it is not responsible for these tools until they are on the rig floor and ready to be used in the actual fishing for the stuck equipment. Jones’ job description as contained in his personnel file notes that one of his responsibilities is “supervise operation of picking up and laying down of same tools.” Same tools refers to various fishing tools on the job for the fishing operation. There are also Job Safety Analysis (JSAs) that are prepared by Smith in connection with fishing operations that establish a procedure and sequence for moving fishing tools to the catwalk, making sure the crossover subs are tight, and moving the fishing tools up through the V-door and onto the rig floor. These JSAs are Smith’s records. Some of the JSAs were prepared before this accident. However, there are numerous that were prepared after the accident and in response to the accident. The method in which Smith now requires the fishing tools to be moved clearly and unequivocally establishes that Smith was the entity responsible for moving the fishing tools from the ground to the rig floor on December 27, 2005.

Ms. Gilbert’s mother testified that she kept Joshua while Ms. Gilbert was at work. She typically keeps Joshua from approximately 3:30 p.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. during the week. She testified that Mr. Williams was always welcome at her home and that he came by approximately two (2) times a month during the two (2) years after Mr. Williams and Mrs. Johnson were divorced. She testified that Joshua and Mr. Williams always displayed affection and based on her personal observations they clearly had a very loving relationship.

Defendant, Smith’s Contentions:

Smith asserts that safety is the responsibility of all persons on a well location, not just a third party contractor who has been hired to do a specific job by the drilling company. Martex is the entity who was in complete charge of the drilling operation at the well location and is the entity that hired Smith to perform the fishing operation on the date of the accident. Martex had numerous bosses including a toolpusher, driller and a “company man”(the man in charge of the whole rig) at the well location. Martex has a duty to ensure that their employees perform their work in a safe manner and in a manner that does not harm anyone. Martex failed in its duties to Mr. Williams and its employees’ failures are the sole reason Mr. Williams died on December 27, 2005.

Prior to beginning the fishing operation, a safety meeting was to have been conducted concerning the fishing operation. It is undisputed that Martex’s policies require such a meeting to take place before any third party contractor, in this case Smith, begins performing its work on a well location. Additionally, Martex was in possession of the equipment and tool invoice, which clearly reflected that a crossover sub was available at the well location and was available to be used to screw into the fishing jar so that a lifting eye could be used to move the fishing jar.

Martex violated numerous policies and procedures that were in effect at the time of the accident. First, Mr. Williams had been employed by Martex for less than a week and, as a “trainee”, was to be assigned a mentor. Based on the testimony of all of the crew members on the job at the time of the accident, none of Martex’s employees could identify Mr. Williams’ mentor. None of the crew members believed they were the assigned mentor of Mr. Williams based on their testimony. Additionally, Martex has a policy of appointing a Safety Captain for each shift. The Safety Captain is responsible for numerous safety issues, including conducting safety meetings, making sure all employees and third party contractors sign in at the time they arrive at the well. The records indicate one of Martex’s employees, one of the Martex employees was the Safety Captain during the shift when this accident occurred. However, that employee testified he did not know he was the safety captain during this shift. He further testified that the policies of Martex do not allow a derrickman, which was his job at the time of the incident, to be a Safety Captain. He also testified that on the date of the accident the crew that was on duty was one man short of a full crew. The crew was missing a derrickman so he was promoted to that position. There were numerous other violations of various policies and procedures that Martex had in place at the time of the incident.

Smith’s position is that the fishing operation does not begin until the tools are on the rig floor and the process of placing them in the hole is begun. Martex is in charge of moving the fishing tools from the ground to the rig floor. This is standard practice in the oil industry. Smith’s job does not begin until the tools are on the rig floor and the downhole fishing is imminent.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Williams was on the rig floor by himself. Martex had two bosses who were both in the upper dog house, which is located within 15 feet of where the accident occurred. However, neither of them took any action to attempt to identify any safety hazards while the tools were being moved from the ground to the rig floor. Although they both testified that neither of them realized Mr. Williams was on the rig floor while the tools were being moved, someone from Martex should have been aware of Mr. Williams location on the rig floor and made sure he was out of harm’s way. Any oil field hand with any experience recognizes Mr. Williams should not have been on the rig floor at this time because of the dangers associated with moving tools.

Finally, Jones did not instruct Martex’s floor hand on the manner in which he was to tie onto the fishing jar. Jones left the area where the floor hand was tying onto the fishing jar and was walking to the rig floor when the floor hand tied onto the fishing jar. Smith believes the “double half hitch” was improperly tied onto the fishing jar and that if it had been tied properly, then the chain would not have slipped off the fishing jar and hit Mr. Williams. Martex’s employee, the floor hand, is the one who tied onto the fishing jar with the chain is responsible for the chain coming off the fishing jar, not Jones or Smith.

Defendant asserted that Mr. Williams visited Joshua infrequently. Additionally, Mr. Williams new wife, Alicia Williams, testified she did not even know that Mr. Williams had a child from his marriage to Ms. Gilbert. She testified that Mr. Williams had not ever mentioned Joshua to her.

At best, Defendant contended that the evidence is that Mr. Williams had a very limited relationship with Joshua .

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

At trial, the Intervenor sought only intangible damage items from the jury and the jury awarded the minor, Joshua Williams the following damage items:

Michelle Gilbert, as Next Friend of Joshua Williams was awarded:

(1) Loss of companionship and society in the past in the amount of $50,000.00;
(2) Loss of companionship and society in the future in the amount of $150,000.00;
(3) Mental anguish in the past in the amount of $50,000.00; and
(4) Mental anguish in the future in the amount of $750,00.00;


Intervenor’s Expert Witness:  

LIABILITY EXPERT:
Jerry L. Purswell, P.E.
Purswell & Purswell
2035 Mulligan Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920

Defendant, Smith Int’l Inc.’s Expert Witness:       
 
LIABILITY EXPERT:
Terry L. Brittenham
Southern International, Inc.
4200 Perimeter Center Drive, Suite 205
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112


Disposition:            Plaintiff Alicia Williams, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jerron Williams settled for a confidential amount at mediation with Smith and Martex

Intervenor, Michelle Gilbert, as Next Friend of Joshua Williams settled her gross negligence claims against Martex for $200,000.00 prior to trial and obtained a jury verdict of $1,000,000.00 against Smith, which was reduced to $490,000 as a result of the jury apportioning liability in the following manner: 49% on Smith, 50% on Martex and 1% on Jerron Williams.

Intervenor’s claims were settled post verdict with Smith for $510,000.00. The total recovery for Intervenor was $710,000.00.

Insurance Carrier:        Martex: Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Smith: Ace American Insurance Company

Sidelights:        There was a workers compensation lien that was settled and compromised and future benefits continue to be paid without interruption to Joshua.

Also, at the time Intervenor’s lead trial counsel, Derryberry & Zips, PLLC, were hired, the Defendants had collectively offered $150,000 to settle little Joshua’s claims. The Defendant, Smith’s last offer prior to trial was $200,000.00  

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court:                   In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas-Marshall Division   

Civil Action No.:  CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-411-TJW

Judge:                  Honorable T. John Ward/ Magistrate Charles Everingham

Mediator:            Richard Grainger, Tyler, Texas

Style:            CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-411-TJW: April Reyes Individually, As Representative of the Estate of Everado Reyes and As Next Friend to Breanna Reyes and Micaela Reyes, Minors v. Madden Contracting Co., Inc. and an un named product manufacturer

Verdict Date:    Settled for confidential amount at mediation with the un named product manufacturer and for $400,000 from Madden Contracting Co., Inc.

Type of Case:    Wrongful Death- Product Liability against the un named product manufacturer and Gross Negligence against Everado Reyes, Deceased’s employer, Madden Contracting Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s Attorney(s):    Andy Payne
PayneMitchell Law Group
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd.
Dallas, Texas

Daryl L. Derryberry
Derryberry & Zips, P.L.L.C.
100 E. Ferguson St., Suite 1212
Tyler, Texas 75702

Defendant’s Attorney(s):   
Un named Product Manufacturer:    Confidential
Madden Contracting Co., Inc. (Madden)

Douglas Fletcher and Keith Robb
Fletcher, Farley, Krueger, Shipman & Salinas, LLP
8750 N. Central Expressway, 16th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75231

Allegations by Plaintiff:   

Plaintiff alleged that the commercial street sweeper being operated by Reyes on July 10, 2007 on Highway 155 in Cherokee County, Texas was defective in that it had a propensity to tip over when the operator, in this case Reyes, attempted to turn the sweeper in a normal manner.  Plaintiff also alleged that the roll over protection system (ROPS) was defective in that it should have been enclosed so as to prevent the operator from being thrown from the seat and crushed. 

Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant, Madden, failed to properly train and supervise Reyes in connection with his operation of the commercial sweeper and that he was not qualified by training or experience to operate the sweeper.  Specifically, Plaintiff developed evidence that at the time Reyes was hired he did not possess a drivers license.  Plaintiff alleged that Madden’s own documents established that Reyes was operating the sweeper in violation of Madden’s policies and procedures, which prohibited the operation of a company vehicle without a drivers license.  It should be noted that Madden defined “vehicle” to include construction equipment of any type. The evidence also established that Madden could produce no documents supporting its contention that it provided on the job training  to Reyes to operate the sweeper at any time during his employment prior to his death.  Further, the evidence developed established that 90% of the time Reyes operated a Material Transfer Device, which operated substantially different than the sweeper.

Plaintiffs also established that Madden, at no time, enforced its purported policy to wear seatbelts while operating equipment.  The evidence established that Reyes supervisor, although aware of the seatbelt policy, did not enforce it until after the accident occurred.  After the accident, Madden sent two emails to its employees that focused on wearing seat belts while operating company vehicles, which included equipment.

Reyes did not speak English.  The evidence was that there did not exist a Spanish version of the operator’s manual and  nobody ever discussed the contents of the operator’s manual including any of the  warnings contained in the operators’s manual with Reyes. 

Madden was also cited by OSHA for a serious violation in allowing an employee who was not qualified by training or experience to operate the piece of equipment.  Madden paid a fine associated with this violation

Defense Contentions:

Defendant, un named manufacturer of the product, contended that its produce was not defective in any manner.  It also contended that Reyes failure to wear his seat belt was the sole cause of his death.

 
Madden contended that Reyes caused this accident by turning sharply while driving at the sweeper’s top speed. Madden also contended that Mr. Reyes’ death occurred because he chose not to wear a seatbelt.  Madden further contended that Mr. Reyes was trained  by experience to operate the commercial sweeper.  It also contended that the evidence established that Mr. Reyes received instructions from other employees on the operation of the sweeper and operated it under the supervision of other employees.   

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

The Plaintiffs pled for and were seeking all damages available under the law.  The Plaintiffs’ economic damages totaled $508,354.  There were damage caps in place for the damages that could be awarded against Madden in light of the Plaintiff’s only means of recovery against Madden being based on gross negligence since it had worker’s compensation insurance in place at the time of the accident. 

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses:   

LIABILITY EXPERT:
Way L. Johnston
34 Lazy Ln
The Woodland, Texas 77380

ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
Robert Bailes
Bailes & Co., P.C.
1357 Dominion Plaza
Tyler, Texas 75703

Defendants Expert Witnesses:           

Disposition:            The case was settled at mediation for a confidential amount with the  un named product manufacturer

Madden settled for $400,000.00

Insurance Carrier:        Self Insured for the un named product manufacturer

Transportation Insurance Company for Madden

Sidelights:        There was a workers compensation lien that was settled and compromised for a substantial reduction and future benefits continued to be paid without interruption. 

Allegations by Plaintiff:   

Plaintiff alleged that the commercial street sweeper being operated by Reyes on July 10, 2007 on Highway 155 in Cherokee County, Texas was defective in that it had a propensity to tip over when the operator, in this case Reyes, attempted to turn the sweeper in a normal manner.  Plaintiff also alleged that the roll over protection system (ROPS) was defective in that it should have been enclosed so as to prevent the operator from being thrown from the seat and crushed. 

Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant, Madden, failed to properly train and supervise Reyes in connection with his operation of the commercial sweeper and that he was not qualified by training or experience to operate the sweeper.  Specifically, Plaintiff developed evidence that at the time Reyes was hired he did not possess a drivers license.  Plaintiff alleged that Madden’s own documents established that Reyes was operating the sweeper in violation of Madden’s policies and procedures, which prohibited the operation of a company vehicle without a drivers license.  It should be noted that Madden defined “vehicle” to include construction equipment of any type. The evidence also established that Madden could produce no documents supporting its contention that it provided on the job training  to Reyes to operate the sweeper at any time during his employment prior to his death.  Further, the evidence developed established that 90% of the time Reyes operated a Material Transfer Device, which operated substantially different than the sweeper.

Plaintiffs also established that Madden, at no time, enforced its purported policy to wear seatbelts while operating equipment.  The evidence established that Reyes supervisor, although aware of the seatbelt policy, did not enforce it until after the accident occurred.  After the accident, Madden sent two emails to its employees that focused on wearing seat belts while operating company vehicles, which included equipment.

Reyes did not speak English.  The evidence was that there did not exist a Spanish version of the operator’s manual and  nobody ever discussed the contents of the operator’s manual including any of the  warnings contained in the operators’s manual with Reyes. 

Madden was also cited by OSHA for a serious violation in allowing an employee who was not qualified by training or experience to operate the piece of equipment.  Madden paid a fine associated with this violation

Defense Contentions:

Defendant, un named manufacturer of the product, contended that its produce was not defective in any manner.  It also contended that Reyes failure to wear his seat belt was the sole cause of his death.
 
Madden contended that Reyes caused this accident by turning sharply while driving at the sweeper’s top speed. Madden also contended that Mr. Reyes’ death occurred because he chose not to wear a seatbelt.  Madden further contended that Mr. Reyes was trained  by experience to operate the commercial sweeper.  It also contended that the evidence established that Mr. Reyes received instructions from other employees on the operation of the sweeper and operated it under the supervision of other employees.   

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

The Plaintiffs pled for and were seeking all damages available under the law.  The Plaintiffs’ economic damages totaled $508,354.  There were damage caps in place for the damages that could be awarded against Madden in light of the Plaintiff’s only means of recovery against Madden being based on gross negligence since it had worker’s compensation insurance in place at the time of the accident. 

Second Case Summary

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court:                     In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas-Marshall Division   

Civil Action No.:    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV20

Judge:                     Honorable David Folsom
        
Mediator:                Richard Grainger, Tyler, Texas

Style:            CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV20: Carlton Edward Keller, Jr. and Laura Dee Keller, Both Individually and as Next Friends of Curtis Ryan Keller, a Minor v. An un named product distributor.

Verdict Date:    Settled for confidential amount at mediation

Type of Case:    Personal Injury-Product Liability

Name of Person Submitting Case:    Daryl L. Derryberry

Plaintiff’s Attorney(s):    Andy Payne
PayneMitchell Law Group
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd.
Dallas, Texas

Daryl L. Derryberry and Craig D. Zips
Derryberry & Zips, P.L.L.C.
100 E. Ferguson St., Suite 1212
Tyler, Texas 75702

Defendant’s Attorney(s):    Mark Enoch and Luke Davis
Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C.
2200 One Galleria Tower13355 Noel Road, L.B. 48Dallas, Texas 75240-1518

Allegations by Plaintiff:   
 
On November 19, 2005 twelve (12) year old Curtis Keller was taking a warm up lap prior to a scheduled  motocross race  at Swans Race Track in Tyler, Texas.  He rolled over a jump and, according to the eyewitnesses, lost control of the motorcycle he was operating as he approached the bottom of the hill between jumps while going between 10-12 mph.  Curtis’ motorcycle went to the left and his body went to the right in what was described as a minor fall.  All of  the witnesses testified they expected Curtis to get and up and continue riding his motorcycle.  However, did not get up.  In fact,  Curtis sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in the form of a  severe diffuse axonal injury (DAI) from which he will likely not recover.

Curtis was wearing an off road motorcycle helmet when his helmeted head impacted the packed dirt of the track.  Upon impact, Curtis did not move.  Plaintiffs contended that the helmet’s liner did not properly attenuate the forces that were transmitted to his head.  In this regard, Plaintiffs  contended that the EPS (styrofoam) liner was too stiff such that it did not properly crush and absorb the forces as it should have.  Plaintiffs contended that the failure of the liner to attenuate the forces resulted in the forces being transmitted directly to Curtis’ brain causing the sever brain injury.  Plaintiffs contended that there were safer alternative designs that were available, and both economically and technologically feasible,  that would have prevented Curtis’ severe DAI.

Defense Contentions:

Defendant contended that the helmet was not defective and that it complied with the requisite government DOT standard, which is FMVSS 218.    Defendant also contended that in the event a safer alternative design existed, which Defendant disputed, that such design would not have prevented Curtis sustaining the severe DAI. 

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

The minor Plaintiff, Curtis Keller sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in the form of a  DAI.  This was his only significant injury.  Curtis’ parents incurred  $815,000.00 in medical bills.  Curtis Keller’s  life care planner estimated future medical costs, discounted back to present value, of approximately $5,739,138.00.  Curtis Keller would likely not have ever worked given the nature and severity of his brain damage.  His future loss of earning capacity discounted back to present value totaled  $2,237,596.00. 

Curtis Keller also was making claims for past and future disfigurement, impairment, and physical pain and mental anguish.

Mr. and Mrs. Carl Keller pursued their claims for all medical care to be provided to Curtis until age 18. 

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses:   

DEFECT AND CAUSATION EXPERT:
Igor Paul, P.E., Sc.D.
P.O. Box 178
844 Lakeshore Dr.
Elkins, New Hampshire 03233
 
ECONOMIST:
Tim D. Kane, Ph.D.
1208 Queenspark
Tyler, Texas 75703

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
Dr. Carl Hansen
100 Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701

LIFE CARE PLANNER
Dr. Alex Willingham
RPC
Rehabilitation Professional Consultants, Inc.
8122 Datapoint Dr. # 250
San Antonio, Texas 78229

Defendant’s Expert Witnesses:           

DEFECT EXPERTS:
Professor Hugh H. Hurt, Jr.  (Deceased)
Head Protection Research Laboratory
6409 Alondra Blvd.
Paramount, California 90723

David Thom
Collision & Injury Dynamics
149 Sheldon Dr.
El Segunda, California 90245

CAUSATION and MEDICAL EXPERTS:
James A. Newman, Ph.D.
Newman Biomechanical Engineering Consulting, Inc.
1152 119th Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6J 7H6

Donald F. Schomer, M.D
Radiology Imaging Associates, P.C.
10700 E. Geddes, Suite 210
Englewood, Colorado 80112

Thomas A. Gennarelli, M.D.
7200 North Beach Drive
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217
 
Disposition:            The case was settled at mediation for a confidential amount.

Insurance Carrier:        Not reported

Sidelights:        The case was vigorously litigated with numerous fact witness and all but  two (2) experts being deposed at the time of mediation. 

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court:   United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division

Civil Action No. 2:05CV33
Judge:   Honorable Leonard Davis
Mediator: Richard Grainger, Tyler, Texas

Style:    Betty Matthews, as Guardian of the Estate of Roderick K. Matthews v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., f/k/a JPMorgan Chase Bank

Type of Case: Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligent Management of Guardian Account

Name of Person Submitting Case:         Derryberry & Zips, P.L.L.C.

Allegations by Plaintiffs: In or about 1983, Roderick K. Matthews was involved in a helicopter accident which resulted in severe, permanent and disabling injuries to Mr. Matthews.  As a result of the injuries he sustained in the helicopter accident, Mr. Matthews filed a lawsuit which resulted in a substantial net settlement to Mr. Matthews.   Subsequently, Mr. Matthews was adjudicated incompetent by the presiding judge in the District Court in Henderson County, Texas.  As a result of Mr. Matthews' compromised mental state a guardianship was instituted and the settlement funds were managed by a third party.

Through series of corporate transactions, mergers and/or acquisitions over the course of several years, in or about 1996 (according to Defendant), Defendant acquired the Estate's trust account.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant created an investment allocation based on an aggressive growth model, placing the majority of assets in stocks.  Plaintiff alleged that this strategy created unacceptable risks for the ward, Roderick Matthews,  and ultimately led to a decline in his account value in excess of $1,000,000.00.  Plaintiff alleged that it suffered damages of approximately $1,400,000.00, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs and interest.

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division

Civil Action No.: V-03-20
Judge:   Honorable John D. Rainey
Mediator: Frank Sothers, San Antonio Texas

Style: Murlene Simper, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Robert Lee Simper, Tiffany Simper, Amanda Simper, Robert Simper, Jr. and Sheryl Janak v. New Holland North America, Inc. and CNH Global, N.V.

Type of Case: Product Liability - Wrongful Death

Name of Person Submitting Case: Daryl L. Derryberry

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court: In the District Court of Freestone County, Texas

Civil Action No.: 06-286-B

Judge: Deborah A. Oakes Evans

Mediator: Mike Patterson, Tyler, Texas

Style: Cause No. 06-286-B;  Juventino "Tino" Delgado and Rosa Amalia Gracia Delgado v. Scandrill, Inc., Justin Dwain Williams, Individually, Seth Cody Bearden, Individually, and Mark Smith, Individually

Verdict Date:  Settled for confidential amount approximately two months after  mediation

Type of Case: Personal injury - Oilfield accident

Name of Person Submitting Case: Daryl L. Derryberry

Allegations by Plaintiff:

Plaintiff Juventino Delgado, while working as part of a casing crew for his employer, Tesco Services, Inc. ("Tesco"), sustained  severe, permanent and debilitating injuries as a result when a piece of casing he was tailing came into contact with the block being lowered by Defendant, Scandrill, Inc.'s ("Scandrill) driller, Justin Williams ("Williams").  Plaintiffs contended that  Scandrill and/or its employees were in sole and exclusive possession and control of the instrumentalities and activities that caused the Plaintiff, Juventino Delgado's injuries and damages. 

On the day in question, Plaintiff was performing his job responsibilities in connection with the movement of the piece of casing being hoisted by Scandrill's motorman, Seth Bearden ("Bearden"),  from the ground, up through the V door and to be placed in the "mouse hole."  Williams was in sole and exclusive possession and control of the "block," and Williams failed to properly operate the block such that the piece of casing being hoisted by Bearden and tailed by Mr. Deglado came into contact with the block being lowered by Williams.   The force of the impact of the collision between the casing and the block caused Plaintiff to be catapulted more than thirty (30) feet across the rig floor and off the rig down to the catwalk.  As a result of this fall, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including but not limited to a mild traumatic brain injury  with right subdural hematoma, resulting in  cognitive disabilities, multiple contusions, facial lacerations, scalp lacerations, chin lacerations, fractures of the right zygomatic arch and right posterior lateral maxillary sinus wall, right shoulder injury, right  knee injury, C5-C6 cervical spine fractures, subluxation of C6 on C7 and a posterior disc protrusion at this level extending into the left neural foramen, as well as other injuries, necessitating him being life flighted to Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center in Waco, Texas.

Generally, Plaintiffs contended Scandrill and its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors failed to use ordinary care in connection with the placement of the casing in the well bore on the date of the accident.   Plaintiffs believe it significant that Williams and Bearden each had been recently promoted with Williams being a driller for only 35 days and Bearden being a motorman for only 35 days prior to the accident.

Defense Contentions:

Defendant contended TESCO's supervisor and   the owner/operator's (XTO) representative, the company man, made the decision not to use a lay down machine to run the casing on the date of the accident.  Defendants contended that if a lay down machine had been used to run the casing on that date of the accident, then the accident would not have occurred because Mr. Delgado  would not have been required to tail the casing into the mouse hole. 

Defendants contended that Mr. Delgado was "flagging" the motorman, Bearden, and signaled Bearden to bring up the piece of casing that was involved in the accident.  Defendants contended that Mr. Delgado and the casing crew were in a hurry to complete the casing job because the crew had been waiting at the job site since approximately 6:00 am and they started the job about 3:00 pm. Defendants contended that Mr. Delgado actually hurriedly pushed the piece of casing he was tailing, once it cleared the V door, across the rig floor and under the block being lowered by Williams.

Defendant, Scandrill,  contended that Williams and Bearden were experienced workers and good employees.  Scandrill contended both had on the job training for a while prior to him being promoted to driller and motorman respectively.

Defendants also contended Mr. Delgado was the one with superior knowledge out on the rig that day.  Defendants contended  Mr. Delgado was the most senior man from an experience standpoint on the casing crew.  His 20 + years of experience should have given him a heightened awareness of the potential dangers associated with running casing in the manner in which it was being run the day of the accident.

Defendants contended Mr. Delgado did not fully comply with all of his doctor's orders in connection with his rehabilitation for his head injury.  Defendants contended Mr. Delgado did not complete the  outlined a course of therapy to assist him in recovering from his injury and he did not ever attend one of these sessions.

Defendants contended that Mr. Delgado was contributorily negligent, at a minium, to the accident that makes the basis of this lawsuit.

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

The Plaintiff, Mr. Delgado sustained severe injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic brain injury  with right subdural hematoma, resulting in severe cognitive disabilities, multiple contusions, facial lacerations, scalp lacerations, chin lacerations, fractures of the right zygomatic arch and right posterior lateral maxillary sinus wall, right shoulder injury, right  knee injury, C5-C6 cervical spine fractures, subluxation of C6 on C7 and a posterior disc protrusion at this level extending into the left neural foramen, as well as other injuries, necessitating him being life flighted to Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center in Waco, Texas.

Mr. Delgado incurred approximately $130,000 in medical bills, of which approximately $44,000 had been paid by the worker's compensation carrier.  Mr. Delgado's treating physician testified at least one future surgery to fuse the area below the original fusion would be necessary, at a cost of approximately $40,000-$60,000.   Mr. Delgado's life care planner estimated future medical costs of approximately $500,000.  Mr. Delgado was seeking lost wages in the past that totaled $31,339 and future loss of earning capacity based on his physical limitations as a result of his injuries.  Given his cervical spine injury, Mr. Delgado would never be able to return to work as a casing hand on a rig. 

Mr. Delgado recovered from his fusion and returned to work approximately 8 months after the accident.  He continues to be employed by TESCO although it wis a light duty job.  Although his hourly pay decreased some, it was not significant decrease.  Plaintiffs' vocational rehabilitation expert believed there were three likely scenarios for Mr. Delgado's future employment for the next 7 years, which is when he turns 65.  Based on the vocational rehabilitationist's opinions, Plaintiffs' economist assumed the following scenarios and provided the following amounts of lost wage earning capacity:

(1) Mr. Delgado would  continue to be employed by TESCO  working in the oilfield yard at the office doing limited tasks but still making almost the same amount of money that he made prior to the accident. Under this scenario, his future loss of earning capacity was $139,101.

(2) Mr. Delgado was able to obtain a job making $5.93/hour when he loses his job from his current "benevolent employer."  The available jobs for someone who has Jose's skill set ( brain injury,  Hispanic, 3rd grade education, Spanish speaking) is limited.  Under this scenario, his future loss of earning capacity is $249,097.

(3) Mr. Delgado would not be able to obtain gainful employment because of his injuries and his limited skill set.  Under this scenario, his future loss of earning capacity was $327,416.

Mr. Delgado was also making claims for past and future disfigurement, impairment, and physical pain and mental anguish.

Mrs. Rosa Delgado filed a claim for loss of consortium. 

Disposition: The case was settled for a confidential amount approximately 2 months after mediation.

Insurance Carrier: Chubb Insurance

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Style: Marlene Barnett, Individually and as next friend to Brandon Barnett and Brianna Barnett and Kareem Thomas v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, L.L.C., Successor in interest to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Roger Beasley Mazda, Inc. and Roger Beasley Imports, Inc.; In the District Court of Travis County, Texas

Allegations by Plaintiff:

Plaintiffs alleged that the Bridgestone Dueler tire that detreaded  was defective.  In this regard, suddenly, and without warning, the back right tire of the 1998 Honda Passport being operated by Plaintiff, Marlene Barnett, detreaded causing Ms. Barnett to lose control of the vehicle.  Kareem Thomas was riding in the front passenger seat.  The vehicle immediately pulled hard to the left, entered the median of U.S. Highway 71 in between Bastrop and Austin and proceeded to flip several times.  Ms. Barnett was required to be life flighted to the hospital for the treatment of her injuries.  Ms. Barnett sustained severe and debilitating injuries including an open head wound, hematoma that had to be removed surgically, severe lacerations in her dominant left hand, severe scaring on her upper extremities and lower extremities, on both the left and right sides.  She also experienced some neurological deficit.

Ms. Thomas suffered a broken left tibia.  She also underwent an exploratory laparotomy upon admission to Breckenridge Memorial Hospital.  She further experienced broken ribs, contusions, and lacerations on her body.  Ms. Thomas was transported to the hospital via ambulance.

Ms. Barnett incurred approximately $170,000.00 in medical bills.  Ms. Barnett's children filed claims for loss of consortium.

Ms. Thomas incurred approximately $31,000.00 in treatment for the injuries she sustained with no future treatment being anticipated.

Defense Contentions:

The Defendants contended that the tire was not defective, and that a patch in the tire caused and/or contributed to cause the detreading of the tire.

Plaintiff's expert witnesses:

H. R. "Dick" Baumgardner, President
Tire Consultants, Inc.
3330 Lakewind Way
Alpharetta, Georgia 30005
PH:  1-800-882-7006
Tire and wheel related accident analysis and reconstruction

Andrew D. Irwin
The Irwin Company
2623 Abrams Road
Dallas, Texas 75214
PH: (214) 320-8686
Accident reconstruction expert.

William Bruce Jones, Ph.D.
Neuropsychology Associates of Dallas
12820 Hillcrest, Suite 118
Dallas, Texas 75230
PH: (972) 243-1666

Ms. Barnett's treating physicians:

Chukwuemeka Onyewu, M.D.
8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 706
Silver Springs, Maryland 20910
PH: (301) 589-2015

David S. Wishnew, M.D.
Plastic, Cosmetic & Reconstructive Surgery of the Hand
1015 East 32nd Street, #216
Austin, Texas 78705
PH: (512) 477-4144

Defense expert witnesses:

Unknown.

Disposition:

The case settled for a confidential amount at mediation conducted on January 19,  2004.

EAST TEXAS TRIAL REPORTS CASE REPORT FORM

Court: In the 87th Judicial Court of Anderson County, Texas    

Civil Action No.: 10053

Judge: Deborah A. Oakes Evans

Mediator: Mike Patterson, Tyler, Texas

Style: Valeria Young and Jacky Young v. Adolphus Emmett Dickerson, Individually and d/b/a Al's Trucking; In the 87th Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas, Cause No. 10053

Type of Case: Personal injury - 18 wheeler accident.

Name of Person Submitting Case: Daryl L. Derryberry

Allegations by Plaintiff:

On or about March 2, 2004, Plaintiff was traveling south on State Highway 155 approaching the intersection of Loop 256 and State Highway 155 in Anderson County, Texas.  As Plaintiff was approaching the above referenced intersection she noticed an 18-wheeler stopped at the stop sign attempting to enter onto State Highway 155 and travel north.  The 18-wheeler Plaintiff saw was stopped at the stop sign.  Plaintiff  proceeded south on State Highway 155 when another 18-wheeler traveling east that had just existed Loop 256 went around the 18-wheeler that was stopped at the stop sign and proceeded into the intersection immediately in front of Plaintiff's vehicle on State Highway 155.  This 18-wheeler was being operated by the Defendant, Adolphus Emmett Dickerson.  Plaintiff contended that Mr. Dickerson operated his 18-wheeler in such a negligent manner that Plaintiff had no warning or time to take evasive action to avoid this incident.  As Defendant pulled out into oncoming traffic on State Highway 155, Plaintiff's vehicle collided with the trailer being pulled by the Defendant, Adolphus Emmett Dickerson.

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was negligent in one or more of the following particulars on the day in question:

Plaintiff also contended that the conduct of Defendant on the date in question constituted negligence per se.  In this regard, Plaintiff contended that Mr. Dickerson violated one or more of the provisions of the Texas Transportation Code, including, but not limited to, the following:

Defense Contentions:

Defendant contended that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and that Plaintiff was speeding at the time the incident occurred.  Defendant also contended that the brakes on his trailer and/or tractor were not operating correctly and that was the cause of him running the stop sign and entering the intersection of 155 South in Palestine, Anderson County, Texas.  Defendant contended it was questionable Plaintiff would be required to undergo a total left knee replacement in the future as alleged by Plaintiff.

Alleged Damages or Injuries Sustained by and Whom:

The Plaintiff, Valeria Young, sustained  injuries to her left knee, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.  Plaintiff also contended that she sustained a minor closed head injury which caused her to have dizzy spells on a continual basis.  Her left knee had a torn minicus, which was surgically repaired.  Additionally, Plaintiff contended that her left knee was going to require a knee replacement at some point in the future.

Mrs. Young sustained $26,212.69 in past medical.

Lost wages in the past of $15,845.00.

Total Special Damages of  $42,057.69 

Jacky Young, Plaintiff, filed a claim for loss of consortium.