We represented the Defendants in this case. This is a civil motor vehicle/negligence case in which the Plaintiff Butland was rear-ended by the Defendant Saunders suffered a fracture and acute disc hern...iation in the C5/C6 together with an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition to the Plaintiff’s lumbar spine. The Defendant was a teenage driver at the time of the accident. Plaintiff treated for a period of four years resulting in a cervical fusion of the C5/C6 vertebrae. Treatment included physical therapy, spinal injections and finally surgery. The Plaintiff had $100,000.00 in medical bills and was also claiming lost wages in the amount of $50,000.00.
At trial the treating physician and the Defendant’s consulting expert witness held contrary opinions as to the causative relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the subsequent cervical disc fusion surgery. The Plaintiff’s Complaint sought damages for negligence as well as a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of the Plaintiff’s husband. The Plaintiff in closing argument pursuant to the M.G.L. Chapter 234, Section 28 argued to the jury and requested a specific monetary figure in the amount of $380,000.00.The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant of no negligence. 2015.
Litigation
Santiago v. Rich Products
Apr 17, 2014
OUTCOME: Defendant's Verdict
We represented the Defendant in this case. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff, a 7-year-old student at an elementary school in Lowell, MA, in this products liability case choked on a meatball at lunch and lo...st consciousness. Deprivation of oxygen led to profound brain damage and permanent disability. He incurred over $1,800,000.00 in medical bills, an estimated $12,000,000.00 in future medicals and in excess of $1,200,000.00 in alleged lost earning capacity. Witnesses testified that the Plaintiff and several friends were having a race to see who could eat several meatballs the fastest when one meatball lodged in the Plaintiff's trachea. Teachers on duty first slapped him on the back then twice attempted the Heimlich maneuver, in their ultimately unsuccessful efforts to dislodge the meatball.
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable because, while most meatballs contain soy in some form, Rich Products used soy protein isolate (SPI) to increase protein content and reduce fat content. Plaintiff experts testified that their testing confirmed the Rich Products' meatballs were tougher and harder to chew than prototype meatballs not using SPI. Plaintiff experts also testified that the size of the meatballs (1/2 oz., 1-inch diameter) was the perfect size to block the trachea and consequently increased the choking hazard. The tests used involved a very precise cutting machine which measured the tensile strength of the meatballs upon being cut and the amount of pressure needed to cut them. The result, Plaintiff claimed, was that in comparison, Defendant's meatballs were unreasonably tough and chewy.
Plaintiff further argued meatballs should provide warnings similar to those voluntarily placed on some hot dog products by their manufacturers, which provide choking warnings. Plaintiff experts testified that Defendant was responsible for including a similar warning on the meatball packaging, cautioning that young children should be supervised when consuming the product and/or that the product should be cut into smaller pieces.
Defense conducted similar instrument tests, using Plaintiff's prototype meatballs, Rich Products meatballs and samples from three major competitors of Rich Products. It also tested all the meatballs with a consumer test panel comprised of trained consumers who routinely judge food products for qualities such as taste, texture, mouthfeel and other attributes. The results of both sets of tests conducted by the Defendant were the same. The Rich meatballs finished in the middle of the pack and were not, defense maintained, unreasonably tough nor did they constitute a choking hazard. The meatball was manufactured in compliance with strict USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and FDA production, food safety and labeling regulations and/or guidelines. The meatball also complied with all Child Nutrition (CN) requirements in order to gain Federal approval to be served in public schools as part of the CN School Lunch Program.
Defense choking expert also testified that the Plaintiff's choking had nothing to do with the texture of the meatball. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was engaged in a meatball eating race with other children in the cafeteria. The Defendant argued that it was this eating contest and not any characteristic of the meatball that led to the unfortunate accident and that the Plaintiff had inhaled as he hurriedly swallowed the meatball during the meatball eating race. This caused his epiglottis to automatically shift to allow air in and the air and meatball entered his trachea at the same time, causing him to choke.The jury deliberated for one full day and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2014.
Litigation
Newly Weds Foods, Inc. v. Superior Nut Company, Inc.
Sep 16, 2009
OUTCOME: Plaintiff's Verdict
We represented the Plaintiff in this subrogation action filed in 2005 and tried in 2009. Our client, Newly Weds Foods, Inc. (NWF), an international company specializing in the manufacture of breadings,... spices and rubs, brought this subrogation action against a raw materials supplier, Superior Nut Company (SNC). SNC provided NWF with approximately 12,000 pounds of toasted sesame seeds over the course of several shipments in 2003 which were discovered to have been contaminated with peanuts, a known common allergen. The toasted sesame seeds were shipped in packaging which did not reveal the possible presence of peanuts or that SNC had failed to use dedicated lines of production to avoid cross contamination. This action was based upon breach of contract, breach of warranty of merchantability and the consumer protection statute, G.L. c. 93A §11 (business to business transactions).
After a 3 week trial the jury found for our client NWF on the breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. The jury also issued an advisory finding on the G.L. c. 93A § 11 claim and found SNC had not only engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, but also that they had done so knowingly and willingly. These findings were adopted by the trial judge. The judge also awarded our client its full attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the action and all costs incurred.
The total amounts recovered for our client were $217,556.00 on the breach of contract and warranty claims, double damages of an additional $217,556.00 pursuant to G.L. c. 93A together with award of $217,393.28 in Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for a total award of $652,505.28 plus 12% interest from the date of filing. 2009.
