Seattle, WA
Litigation Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Litigation, Construction & Development, Defective and Dangerous Products
OUTCOME: Defense award
Plaintiff alleged that our client unlawfully crossed an intersection, unlawfully drove down the center lane on the next block, and then struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff claimed significant injurie ... s and property damages because of the accident. At arbitration, William established that our client did not proximately cause the accident. The arbitrator issued an award for the defense.
OUTCOME: Defense verdict
A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a fellow rider, which resulted in the imputation of two of his toes. The motorcyclist brought suit against the designer/distributor of the motorcycle bo ... ot, claiming that the motorcycle boot was defective, failed to adequately protect his foot in the collision, and lacked adequate warnings. Plaintiff sought to recover for his past medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost income, and general damages. Representing the designer/distributor of the motorcycle boot, William consistently asserted that his client had no liability and that the boots were safe. The case proceeded to jury trial where William served as second chair. The jury returned a complete defense verdict on all of plaintiff's products liability theories.
OUTCOME: Dismissal
Defendant property owner leased his property to a tenant that operated a trucking yard. The tenant kept a guard dog on the premises. The dog allegedly harassed the plaintiffs and, on one occasion, woun ... ded one of the plaintiff's guide dogs. Plaintiffs brought suit against the property owner, alleging violations of California's Bane Act, Disabled Persons Act, and common law negligence/premises liability. Representing the property owner, William filed a demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint and plaintiff's first amended complaint. The trial court sustained both demurrers. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court decision to the California Court of Appeals, which left the trial court decision undisturbed.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment for defendant
A slip and fall in a parking lot of a fast food restaurant. Plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on a pool of an oily substance. Plaintiff alleged that the oily substance was grease that spill ... ed when the restaurant's grease trap was emptied by the grease contractor. William obtained summary judgment in favor of the grease contractor on the grounds that his client did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
