|  A
few Recent cases handled by R&K:
A
six-year-old child was run over by a school bus in
front of his home and suffered severe brain injury. The school
board defended that the child had run out in the road. Our
engineering expert performed a reconstruction of the accident
scene in which he showed that the bus was partially on the
left side of the road and over the center line at the moment
of impact. The case settled shortly after that reconstruction.
A
handgun discharged when it was accidentally dropped
to the ground, firing a bullet through the brain of a two
year old child. Suit was filed against the German gun manufacturer.
Even though the gun was very old, we were able to show that
the gun manufacturer knew of the defective design of the gun
which allowed the drop fire to occur, but did nothing to warn
the owners of the danger. The case was settled for millions
of dollars.
A
young woman was riding as a front seat passenger
in her mother’s car on Christmas eve when they were
involved in a head-on accident. Our client broke her right
ankle. The case settled for over $200,000.00 eight months
later.
A
4 year old child was badly bitten on the face
by a seemingly friendly breed of dog, a golden retriever.
Prior to trial, the case settled in the six figures.
The
mother of four young children went to the hospital because
her blood pressure became alarmingly high a few days after
she gave birth to her youngest child. She went to the emergency
room at a local Atlanta hospital of a local hospital, but
an administrative mistake left her waiting for many hours,
even though a doctor was available. While waiting, she had
a stroke, which permanently paralyzed one side of her body.
This case against the hospital was settled prior to suit under
a sealed confidential agreement.
An
absentee corporate landlord owned property adjacent to a residential
neighborhood in Atlanta and rented the property to people
who used the land illegally as a dump for tree stumps and
other wood debris. The pileup of wood started a fire which
burned for months and which the fire department could not
put out. Many of the people in the surrounding neighborhoods
had property destroyed or damaged by the fire. Other people's
health was adversely affected by the smoke, including children
who were hospitalized because the smoke caused severe asthma
attacks. Suit was filed on behalf of 30 individuals in the
neighborhood. The case was settled prior to trial.
Our
client was a minister of a 1200 member church in south metro
Atlanta. He started an outreach program to help the community
and leased a 9,000 square foot building for $9,000 per month.
The landlord agreed that the outreach center could maintain
a daycare center in the building, knowing that the daycare
center would be the main source of income to pay the monthly
rental. After approximately $100,000 worth or improvements
were made by the outreach center, the landlord refused to
cooperate and refused to sign the paperwork required by the
county so that a building permit for the daycare center could
be issued. The outreach center refused to pay any more rent,
and the landlord evicted the outreach center. In the jury
trial which followed, we obtained a verdict for the outreach
center against the landlord for $631,000.00.
A
large company from Saudi Arabia engaged a large company
in Georgia to provide materials for a plant they were building
in the Middle East. The Saudi Arabian company paid the Georgia
company a $10 million retainer. A few months later, the Saudi
Arabian government refused to grant a permit which would allow
the plant to be built. The Georgia company refused to return
any portion of the retainer, stating that they had done all
of the work required, even if the materials were not delivered.
This dispute was settled prior to filing suit.
Our
client's home was destroyed by a fire. The fire insurance
paid its benefits directly to the mortgage company. However,
the mortgage company refused to reduce the amount it claimed
the homeowner owed on the house, instead insisting that the
homeowner pay the full balance. This amounted to several hundred
thousand dollars. In effect, the mortgage company wanted to
be paid twice, once by the insurance company and once by the
homeowner. Suit had to be filed before it was resolved.
A
disability policy was issued to our client. When she
became disabled and made a claim, the insurance company decided
after the fact to deny the policy on the basis of an alleged
pre-existing condition. Suit was filed, and the case was settled
prior to trial.
|
