Idaho Falls, ID
Car accident Lawyer at Idaho Falls, ID
Practice Areas: Car Accidents, Trucking Accident ... +6 more
OUTCOME: $12 million dollar settlement
I represented over 650 individuals in federal multi-district litigation who made claims for a defective product. The claims included screening for medical injuries, hiring expert physicians to review d ... iagnostic studies and make causation opinions, defending dozens of depositions, negotiating a global settlement, and explaining the terms of the settlement to all 650 of my clients.
OUTCOME: Resolved on appeal
Represented the plaintiff-respondent in an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court arising from injuries sustained during a required university field trip when a fellow student slipped on icy sidewalks and ca ... used the plaintiff to fall. The case presented the question whether the University owed a legal duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care when directing students to engage in academic activities off campus. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the University did not owe a duty of care absent a special relationship with the student, and that the general relationship between a public university and its students ordinarily does not give rise to a legal duty to protect against such harms. The opinion clarified the limits of negligence duty for governmental entities and emphasized that without a special relationship, no actionable duty exists.
OUTCOME: Resolved on appeal
Represented the plaintiff in an appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals arising from a premises-liability action after the plaintiff was injured in a fall at residential property previously owned by the de ... fendant. The case centered on whether the defendant owed a continuing duty of care to the plaintiff after the defendant had transferred possession and control of the property to another party. Following a jury trial, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, concluding that no legal duty existed as a matter of law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under Utah premises-liability principles, a former property owner who no longer possesses or controls the premises generally owes no duty to protect invitees from dangerous conditions arising after the transfer of ownership. The opinion clarified the limits of duty in premises-liability cases and reinforced the role of possession and control in determining liability.
OUTCOME: Reversed by court of appeals
Represented the plaintiff-appellant in an appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals arising from a personal injury claim against the University of Utah after the plaintiff was injured during a required off-c ... ampus class activity. The plaintiff argued that the university owed a duty to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability and the reasonableness of the university’s conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that issues of foreseeability and duty were properly questions for the jury in the premises liability context and that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment. The opinion clarified the standards for duty and foreseeability in negligence claims against institutional defendants and reaffirmed that summary judgment is inappropriate when material factual disputes persist.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
