Render Crayton Freeman's Legal Cases (6)

Slip and fall accident

DICKSTEIN v. MARSHALLS OF MA INC.; THE TJX COMPANIES, INC

May 22, 2014

OUTCOME: Jury Verdict $90,000 plus settlement of attorney fee claim for $25,000

Marilyn Dickstein, a 68-year-old retired female, reportedly suffered a fractured shoulder that caused her significant pain and rendered her immobile for several weeks, and resulted in a 13 percent impa ... irment of her left arm as well as an 8 percent impairment of her whole person, when she tripped and fell over a 7-inch-high, 8-foot-long bar, known as a cart stop bumper, as she exited the restroom and approached the shopping area while at a Marshalls department store located in Duluth, Ga., and owned and operated by The TJX Companies Inc. The plaintiff contended defendants Marshalls and TJX created a shopping cart corral near the restroom by using the cart stop bumper but were negligent in that they incorrectly installed the bumper, in violation of the manufacturer’s guidelines and the defendants’ corporate policies, resulting in the bumper to jut out from the wall at a 90 degree angle and into a foreseeable pedestrian pathway. The defendants allegedly claimed the plaintiff had a history of falls and uncontrolled diabetes, failed to have surgery at her doctor’s recommendation, failed to complete her physical therapy, and failed to mitigate her damages. According to plaintiff’s attorney Render C. Freeman of the law firm Andersen, Tate & Carr, PC, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on liability based on Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of the defendants; therefore, the trial was for damages only. Freeman also stated that at trial, the defendants were prohibited from offering evidence or argument of comparative negligence. Freeman added that the jury returned a verdict of $90,000 for pain and suffering due to the plaintiff’s shoulder fracture and impairment, and that before beginning phase II of the trial regarding the plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and expenses, the defendants agreed to pay the $90,000 verdict plus an additional $25,000 for attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Slip and fall accident

Lori Breaks Leg on Painted Handicapped Ramp

Aug 01, 2011

OUTCOME: $350,000 Settlement

On February 17, 2008, Lori exited a retail store in Kennesaw, Georgia after having made a purchase. As she walked toward the parking lot in a light rain, she stepped on a painted handicapped ramp just ... outside of the store. Unbeknownst to Lori, when it rains, the painted portions of these ramps became extraordinarily slippery and dangerous. In the year before Loriâ€™s fall, as many as six (6) other individuals had fallen in the rain on this same ramp or similar painted ramps at this shopping center. One of these individuals also broke her leg; another sustained a concussion. Almost three months before Lori fell, the tenant had notified the landlord / property manager that the painted areas of the ramps were â€œhazardousâ€ and in need of immediate repair based on repeated customer complaints. More than a month prior to Loriâ€™s fall, the tenant even issued a written notice to the landlord / property manager informing it that the painted areas of the ramps were in need of repair as a result of the repeated customer falls. The tenant further stated that the landlord / property manager was obligated under the leasing agreement to make these repairs promptly. But the landlord / property manager implemented no repairs or modifications to the ramps until weeks after Lori fell. Nor did the landlord / property manager implement any safety measures such as warning signs. A month after Loriâ€™s fell and after all of the attempts by the Defendants to remove the hazard, another customer fell on the painted portions of the ramps, establishing that, despite the attempts of the Defendants to remove the hazard, it continued to exist even weeks after Loriâ€™s fall. Loriâ€™s fall was caused by the negligence of the landlord / property manager and the tenant. As a result, Lori suffered painful physical injuries. The fracture required extensive surgery that involved the implanting of permanent hardware to address two separate and distinct fractures. Sometimes, filing suit is the only way to fully discover the extent of the defendantsâ€™ negligence. At first blush, many lawyers would blame Lori for this fall and be concerned about the application of the comparative negligence doctrine, which, in Georgia, provides that the injured party cannot recover if they are equally at fault for their injuries. Only by filing suit were we able to learn of the numerous previous falls and the inexplicable inaction on the part of the defendants. These discoveries led to the addition of claims for punitive damages and attorneyâ€™s fees. Initially, the defendants refused to take responsibility for their negligence and attempted, instead, to blame the painting contractors, alleging that they had failed to utilize the appropriate additive that would increase traction for pedestrians. We argued that an owner and occupier of land cannot allocate fault to third party contractors because the duty of the owner and occupier to maintain their premises and approaches in a safe condition is a non-delegable statutory duty. In other words, if the painting contractor was negligence, then the owner and occupier are still legally liable for that negligence. By pressing towards trial and fully preparing the case, the defendants were forced to fold. Ten months after their early low-ball offer of $18,000, they agreed to settle the case without a jury trial for $350,000. Given the fact that Loriâ€™s medical expenses only totaled $16,500 and that she had no permanent orthopedic problems, a settlement for this amount was an extraordinary result.

Slip and fall accident

Ms. Brandi Trips over wire in her yard

Jun 11, 2010

OUTCOME: $385,000 Settlement

At 85 years old, Miss Brandi had been living independently in Florida, volunteering at her church and managing several rental properties. She was still as sharp as a tack, but her daughters wanted her ... closer to home in case her ability to live independently started to change. After some initial resistance to the idea, Miss Brandi agreed and began to look for a home in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. The phone company activated service to Miss Brandiâ€™s new home before construction was even complete. In doing so, they left a temporary wire strewn across her side yard. This was their normal practice, but the installation technician forgot to place the order for the temporary wire to be buried. The temporary wire was pencil-then and black; even younger eyes would not have been able to see it as it wound through the grass in Brandiâ€™s new side yard. And no one at the phone company ever bothered to warn Brandi or her daughters about it. They just left it there for months. Miss Brandiâ€™s new home sat on a nice lot with plenty of room for her gardens. She was excited to do some fall planting. She found a landscaping company that was going out of business and offering great deals. Brandi surveyed her yard, trying to decide where to put her azaleas and hydrangeas. As she walked down her side yard, she felt an odd sensation. Something was tugging at her foot. Before she knew it, she was headed for the ground, and there was nothing she could do about it. She hit the ground face first and hard. She wasnâ€™t strong enough to brace herself with her arms; so her head and neck took the brunt of the impact. She felt her neck pop and was in immediate pain. She couldnâ€™t get up. This was embarrassing. She called for help, but no one heard her. Eventually, she was able to pull herself up on the air conditioning unit and get to her feet. About an hour later, her daughter arrived. Miss Brandi was embarrassed about the fall and didnâ€™t want to tell her daughter. But her daughter saw the mud on Miss Brandiâ€™s knees and asked her what had happened. Brandi was still in a lot of pain from the fall and didnâ€™t have the energy to argue with her daughter; so she confessed. Within a month of Brandiâ€™s fall, she was diagnosed with a right cervical radiculopathy.After a failed attempt to resolve these issues through conservative treatments such as physical therapy and cervical epidural steroid injections, Miss Brandi underwent a three-level cervical fusion (C4 through C7). The surgeonâ€™s did great work, but Brandi had an extremely difficult time recovering from the anesthesia and had to be hospitalized for weeks. Happy Ending for Miss Brandi. After investing hundreds of hours of legal work and over $20,000 in expenses, Mr. Freeman was able to successfully negotiate a settlement with the phone company for $385,000. Miss Brandi was very pleased that her case did not have to go to a jury trial and even more excited that she could start getting her life back to normal.

Car accident

Jury Verdict Results in Settlement Including Attorney Fees

Apr 21, 2010

OUTCOME: Verdict

Personal injury trial attorney Render Freeman of Andersen Tate & Carr, PC, Duluth Georgia recently represented Dennis White in a jury trial against April McLendon in a straight forward road wreck case. ... In March of 2008, Ms. McLendon struck Mr. Whiteâ€™s vehicle during their evening commute. The wreck led to shoulder surgery for Mr. White, $50,000 in medical expenses and $2,200 in lost wages. The liability carrier tendered its policy limits of $50,000 but Mr. White was required to fully litigate the claim against his own insurer (Liberty Mutual), whom he had paid for $500,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. Liberty Mutual low-balled Mr. White offering only an additional $50,000 and on April 20th and 21st, Mr. Freeman tried the case to a jury in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Judge Randy Rich presiding. The trial lasted 1 Â½ days and the jury needed only 40 minutes to award Mr. White the verdict that he requested: $50,000 in medical expenses, $2,200 in lost wages and $200,000 in past and future pain and suffering. Hereâ€™s where the case got really interesting. After the verdict was returned in favor of Mr. White, Mr. Freeman utilized a little known provision of Georgiaâ€™s 2005 Tort Reform legislation that allows the jury to award attorneyâ€™s fees and expenses to the prevailing party. OCGA 9-11-68(e) provides that once a verdict is returned, the prevailing party may ask the court to commence a second phase of the trial on whether the defenses asserted were frivolous. The finder of fact â€“ the jury â€“ then decides whether any of the defenses were frivolous and, if so, may award attorneysâ€™ fees and litigation expenses. During this second phase of the trial, Mr. Freeman presented evidence of approximately $33,000 in attorneyâ€™s fees and expenses. Libertyâ€™s in-house counsel then argued to the jury that his defenses were not frivolous, but, while the jury was deliberating, Liberty agreed to pay the verdict plus $30,000 in fees and expenses.

Trucking accident

Trailer Breaks Loose & Collides with Passenger Vehicle

Dec 23, 2008

OUTCOME: Settlement $300,000

Mr. Riley was waiting to take a left-hand turn from Mountain Industrial Boulevard onto Hugh Howell Road in DeKalb County, Georgia. At that same time, a landscaping truck, which was pulling a trailer w ... ith a 15,000 pound forklift, was attempting to make a right-hand turn from Hugh Howell Road onto Mountain Industrial Boulevard. During this turn, the trailer with the 15,000 pound forklift broke loose from the truck, crossed over two northbound lanes of Mountain Industrial Boulevard and collided with Mr. Rileyâ€™s vehicle. The trailer and forklift collided with Mr. Rileyâ€™s vehicle. The left-hand tine of the forklift went under Mr. Rileyâ€™s car causing substantial damage to the suspension; while the right-hand tine impaled the driverâ€™s side door, narrowly missing Mr. Riley. The impact of this collision was severe. The police report rated the damage to Mr. Rileyâ€™s vehicle as a four (4) which translates to â€œextensiveâ€. The weight ratios between the two vehicles substantially favored the trailer and forklift. The cost of repair inevitably exceeded $16,000.00. Prior estimates were lower and if they had been more accurate, Mr. Rileyâ€™s car would have been totaled. Our investigation revealed that the trailer hitch had broken once before and that the landscapers had welded it back together at the shop. Nothing was done to test the strength of this weld. The wreck with Mr. Riley was caused when the untested weld failed. The landscapers also failed to properly utilize safety chains. The ad hoc configuration of the welded hitch called for the safety chains to be hooked to the hitch assembly itself, not to the frame of the vehicle. Injuries. Immediately upon impact, Mr. Riley developed a debilitating headache and sharp pain in his right shoulder. His complaint of injury was confirmed in the police report. He declined an ambulance to the emergency room, deciding instead that he would be optimistic that these symptoms would hopefully subside. Unfortunately, Mr. Riley was wrong. The pain quickly migrated to his left shoulder and neck area and, soon thereafter, he sought treatment at Resurgens Spine Center. The doctors performed right and left cervical epidural steroid injection a few days later. Unfortunately, the epidural steroid injections and physical therapy did not provide sufficient relief and, a month later, Mr. Riley underwent a two-level cervical fusion at C5-6 and C6-7. The discs were extracted at these levels and replaced with cadaver bone. A plate and screws was then applied across the interface of these vertebral joints, immobilizing his neck permanently. His medical expenses exceeded $80,000. Resolution. Obviously, the case would have been stronger if Mr. Riley had never experienced any symptoms before the wreck, but we were fully prepared to fight that fight and let a jury decide. We believed that the conduct of the landscaping company in welding this trailer hitch back together without any testing would carry the day with a jury and result in a verdict in Mr. Rileyâ€™s favor. After extensive litigation, including multiple depositions of the landscaping employees, the parties settled the case. The settlement included a payment of $300,000 to Mr. Riley in exchange for a full release of his claim.

Personal injury

Jury Awards $3.4 Million to Woman Attacked by Janitor

Oct 20, 2008

OUTCOME: $3,400,000 Verdict

On October 26, 2008, Render C. Freeman won a $3.5 million verdict from a Gwinnett County jury against HTH Building Services, Inc., a commercial cleaning company. The case arose out of the November 1 ... 6, 2005 attempted murder of Jane Doe. Ms. Doe was working late in her Buckhead high-rise office when she was attacked by a member of the HTH cleaning crew. The janitor robbed Ms. Doe of her jewelry, choked her until she was unconscious, and, as she lay disabled on the floor of her office, he stomped on her face, attempting to crush her skull and thereby eliminate the only witness who could testify against him. Fortunately, the janitorâ€™s attempted murder was unsuccessful and Ms. Doe awoke 30 minutes after the attack. She immediately called security. When security arrived with the Atlanta Police Department, Ms. Doe identified her attacker as the HTH janitor. During the attack, Ms. Doe sustained multiple jaw fractures, a fractured shoulder, an asymptomatic subdural hematoma and an asymptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. After several months of medical treatment, Ms. Doe fully recovered physically but continues to deal with the obvious emotional impact of her attack. Shortly after the attack, Ms. Doe came to Render C. Freeman of Andersen, Tate & Carr and requested that he and his legal team investigate the matter. After nine months of investigation, the team concluded that Ms. Doe had viable claims against the cleaning company that had hired this janitor and thereby entrusted him with the building keys. Among other things, the team learned that, at the time that this janitor had been hired, there were three outstanding warrants for his arrest in California. One of these warrants was for knifing someone over a parking space. Another was for badly beating a woman in the streets of San Diego. The team also learned that the janitor had been jailed in California for these and other crimes from September of 2001 to May of 2002 and then moved to Georgia in late 2003. HTH Building Services, Inc. hired this janitor six months prior to the attack. At trial, the companyâ€™s representatives testified that company policy required them to collect a ten-year job history, carefully interview, screen and reference-check this janitor and subject him to a â€œsecurity check.â€ The evidence revealed that HTH did not collect this ten-year job history, did not interview, screen or reference-check this janitor, and, as for the â€œsecurity check,â€ HTH ran a Georgia-only criminal background search with the Chamblee Police Department at a cost of $5.00. Chief Marc Johnson of the Chamblee Police Department testified at trial in support of the Plaintiffâ€™s case. Chief Johnson explained that his agencyâ€™s $5 criminal background search would not reveal any criminal arrests or convictions from other states and could only reveal some warrants issued by other states. According to Chief Johnson, if a company wants a national criminal history on a job applicant, it must learn where the applicant is from and contact the law enforcement authorities in that part of the country. For this reason, the Chamblee Police Department is frequently contacted by employers in other states who are investigating job applicants who once lived in Georgia. After a six day trial, including more than 20 witnesses and 150 exhibits, the jury only needed two hours to deliberate. Their verdict included over $70,000 in lost wages and medical expenses, $1 million in past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering, and $1.4 million in attorneyâ€™s fees. Mr. Freeman and his team specialize in representing individuals who are seriously injured as a result of negligent hiring, negligent security, premises liability, medical malpractice, as well as motor-vehicle and trucking negligence.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained