Case Studies

A.R. v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO

Facts

A 44 year-old woman was crossing a busy street on the City’s North side when she was struck by a City fire engine. The woman sustained serious injuries requiring surgery, incurred significant medical bills that she was unable to pay, and was left unable to return to work. The City alleged that the woman was crossing the street in the middle of the block, and that the fire engine had its emergency sirens and lights on.

Offer

Prior to trial, the City of Chicago made a six-figure settlement offer that was rejected by McNamara & Austin.

Outcome

McNamara & Austin took the case to trial and was able to convince the jury that the fire engine could not have been responding to an emergency and that the woman was in fact crossing the street in the crosswalk. A jury awarded the woman more than six times what the City had offered. All of the woman’s medical bills were paid and she was left with a substantial amount of money to compensate her for her injuries and lost wages.

M.R. v. BP AMOCO

Facts

A 37 year-old man was pumping gas at an Amoco station when he noticed another customer sitting in her vehicle at an adjacent pump while her car was filling up with gas. The man noticed that a large amount of gas was spilling out of the nozzle where it was inserted at the car’s tank, and that the customer was unaware of the spillage. The man raced over to the vehicle to stop the flowing gas, and as he approached the tank, his foot slipped on the standing pool of gasoline causing him to fall to the ground. The man’s lower back landed directly on an elevated concrete platform where the gas pumps were located, severely injuring several discs in his spine. McNamara & Austin alleged that at the time of the man’s fall the nozzle automatic shut-off mechanisms were not working properly, and that prior to the incident, BP Amoco was aware of other incidents in which the shut-off mechanism malfunctioned, resulting in spillage of gas, yet failed to correct the defect. BP Amoco denied there was anything wrong with the nozzle, or that they were aware of any prior problems.

Offer

Shortly after the fall, BP Amoco made a settlement offer that would have covered the man’s medical expenses which were significant. McNamara & Austin rejected the settlement offer and instead proceeded with a lawsuit that involved interviewing dozens of witnesses, and acquiring hundreds of maintenance and repair records from BP Amoco. McNamara & Austin was able to establish that there were in fact prior incidents where the nozzles were defective and that BP Amoco was aware of them.

Outcome

Prior to trial, BP Amoco increased its settlement offer by more than ten times its initial offer. All of the man’s medical bills were paid and he was left with a sizeable amount of money to compensate him for his injuries and lost wages.