Jury agrees that low-impact collision was not proximate cause of injury

Rear-end collision was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries to his back, neck and headaches following a car accident. Mohammed Nofal argued that the low-impact collision was not the proximate cause of the injury, and also disputed the nature and extent of the injuries. The jury agreed – and…

Jury disagrees with Plaintiff’s injury claim

Mohammed Nofal successfully tried a motor vehicle collision resulting in a favorable defense verdict. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries as a result of the crash. Mohammed disputed that Plaintiff was injured to the extent she claimed. After an effective cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s medical physician, the jury disagreed with Plaintiff’s claim and returned a defense verdict…

Aggressive Investigation of Fire Claim Saves Client from Litigation

Following an automobile fire that resulted in a young woman suffering second and third degree burns when her dress caught fire while exiting the vehicle, Steve Johnson retained an origin and cause fire investigator and an engineer to prepare a protocol and perform a detailed inspection of the vehicle involved.  Prior to the inspection Steve…

Mistake, rather than misnomer, in naming proper defendant leads to dismissal

Plaintiff sued the wrong corporate entity, and did not seek leave to amend her complaint until after the statute of limitations expired.  Attorney Michael Radak defended the case and was successful on another dispositive motion in favor of the defendant. Despite sharing a corporate office and a registered agent, the Court held that plaintiff’s naming…