Skip to main content
Dan R. Denton

Dan Denton’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Premises Liability – Trip & Fall at Workplace

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Nov 07, 2007
    Outcome:
    $5,981,690.00 jury verdict, reduced to $3,589,014.00 due to Plaintiff’s comparative negligence of 40%. Additionally, a workers’ compensation lien was negotiated and client will have life-time medical benefits.
    Description:
    Client was 34 year old female who managed a Lillian Vernon store in a new shopping center in Bluffton, SC. The electrical sub-contractor left a grounding rod exposed above the sidewalk behind the store where employees take boxes to a nearby box crusher. The rod was 5.5 inches high and 17 inches from the wall. At dusk, client was pushing a loaded cart on the sidewalk and tripped on the rod and fell, resulting in cervical disc herniations and right shoulder rotator cuff injuries. She required surgeries,resulting in chronic neck pain and right arm pain and numbness. She became totally disabled and required the use of a morphine pain pump. The case was complicated by the fact that client had a previous neck injury requiring surgery 4 years before the accident (but she had an excellent recovery) and she was in two auto accidents during the year after the trip/fall. David H. Berry, Esquire, Hilton Head, SC, was co-counsel.
  • Wrongful Death - Auto Accident

    Practice Area:
    Wrongful Death
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    Settled for $1,000,000 in pre-suit mediation
    Description:
    A young man was invited to visit his friend at his parent’s house, who were away, and they started drinking in early evening and both became intoxicated. The host-driver invited his guest to ride in his car to go to a store a store a few miles away. On the return trip, the driver was speeding and lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a tree, killing his passenger-guest upon impact. Since the driver’s car was provided to him by his father, who retained title, the defense conceded that the Family Purpose Doctrine applied (exposing the father’s assets and provided additional insurance coverage). Assumption of the risk was a troubling issue, but we argued that the driver had an enhanced duty of care as the host-driver (as in Dram Shop cases) and because his guest was highly intoxicated and less able to judge the risks than his host, who was less intoxicated. The driver was charged with felony DUI and pled guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter.
  • Worker's Comp - Carpenter Injured Back

    Practice Area:
    Workers Compensation
    Outcome:
    $282,737.00 awarded in permanent total disability and medical benefits, plus life-time medical benefits.
    Description:
    While lifting a heavy compressor, client injured low back. As a result of receiving unconventional Prolotherapy injections, approved by employer’s insurance company, client had ligament injuries to his pelvis and hips resulting in chronic pain. He almost completely recovered from his back injury.
  • Trip & Fall - Employee Fell While Walking Up Exterior Walkway

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    $1,500,000 settlement at second mediation, one week before trial.
    Description:
    A 43 year old female employee of a Hilton Head time-share marketing company broke the upper part of her leg after tripping on an exterior landscape stairway while entering the building where she worked. The stairway, made with railroad ties, did not have a hand rail and violated several sections of the local building code and various industry building standards. Shortly after her surgery and discharge from the hospital, client was diagnosed with RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy), which caused chronic burning type pain and sensitivity to both of her legs. She became totally and permanently disabled and required intensive pain management. We sued the building owner, the management company and the original tenant that leased the offices to the Plaintiff’s employer. (We could not sue the employer due to immunity afforded by workers’ compensation law.) Co-counsel was David H. Berry, Esquire, Hilton Head, SC.
  • Premises Liability / Negligent Entrustment – Fall from Forklift – Wrist & Elbow Fractures.

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Outcome:
    $775,000.00 settlement 5 days before trial after a failed mediation. Defendant's insurance company refused to discuss any settlement for over 2 years.
    Description:
    A 57 year old sub-contractor was hired by a company to run computer cable along its warehouse ceiling. The client was lifted to the ceiling with a company forklift while standing inside a wooden crate sitting unattached on the forks. When raised about 15 ft. high, the forklift “lurched” causing the crate and client to fall to the concrete floor, resulting in complicated fractures to his right elbow and left wrist, as well as some other minor fractures that healed without residual problems. The company’s forklift operator was not trained and certified as required by company policies and OSHA regulations. The sub-contractor sought Workers’ Compensation benefits from the company, which were denied, after which client sued the company under common law negligence theories. The company then claimed that client was a “statutory employee” with Workers’ Compensation being his exclusive remedy (where recovery of damages is very limited), but the court struck the defense on a summary judgment. The client had two surgeries to his wrist and multiple surgeries to his elbow, some of which related to treatment of a MRSA infection acquired in the initial surgery involving “fixation” hardware that was removed in a subsequent surgery. Two treating surgeons assigned permanent impairments ranging 13-22% to the left arm and 2-9 % to the right arm, and both doctors stated that client had post-traumatic arthritis which was most likely to get worse. The client was able to return to his usual occupation with no loss of future income anticipated. As in most premises liability cases, assumption of the risk and comparative negligence were serious concerns in plaintiff’s case.