|
| |
CASE NEWS
January 2012 - No Liability in Crow Wing County Rear-end Accident
Attorney Kevin Gray recently obtained a defense verdict in a personal injury trial venued in Crow Wing County. Plaintiff was rear ended by Kevin's client when she stopped at a crosswalk near a hospital in Crosby, Minnesota. The Defendant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the accident, testified that she did everything she could to stop, but was unable to avoid colliding with the back of Plaintiff's vehicle. The jury found that neither party was negligent in the liability issue, the trial involved extensive medical testimony. Plaintiff treated extensively chiropractic care, epidural steroid injections and radiofrequency neurotomies. Plaintiff called four expert witnesses for testimony at trial including her treating chiropractor, a neurologist, a pain specialist and a neurosurgeon who testified that Plaintiff required a three level fusion. Plaintiff sought $633,000 in damages. The jury found that Plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury or 60 day disability as a result of the accident and awarded $1,000 in past medical expense and $500 for past diagnostic studies. Although there was no evidence of pretreatment and her next medical care when she was seen by the neurologist. There was evidence of moderate degenerative changes in Plaintiff's cervical spine and the independant medical examiner opined that all of the Plaintiff's medical treatment other than the initial emergency room visit and x-ray was related to the degenerative changes.
December 21, 2011 - Summary Judgment
Attorneys Kevin Gray and Kristi Stanislawski successfully defended an operator of a golf course in a dram shop action. The case involved a woman claiming serious injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving a drunk driver. The Plaintiff sued the driver as well as the owner of the golf course alleging an illegal sale of alcohol. Plaintiff claimed the golf course had served the driver of the vehicle while he was "obviously intoxicated" in violation of Minn. Stat. § 340.502. Gray and Stanislawski brought a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the owner of the golf course on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence of intoxication during the time the driver was at the clubhouse attending a wedding reception. The district court in Benton County agreed and dismissed Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's cause of action against the driver and a second bar that had allegedly made an illegal sale is pending.
September 20th, 2011 - Summary Judgment Win
Attorneys Kevin Gray and Victoria Lupu successfully drafted and argued a summary judgment motion on behalf of an insurance company regarding the validity of an appraisal provision in its homeowner's insurance policy. It was undisputed that the appraisal process was followed in accordance with the policy. Rather, the Plaintiff, a homeowner's association, attempted to argue that the appraisal provision itself was ambiguous and unconscionable, and therefore should not be binding. The basis for Plaintiff's argument was the interplay between two sentences in the provision. The first of these stated that the appraisal process was a binding and final decision on the amount of damage. The second sentence stated that the insurance company retained its right to deny coverage. In granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the meaning of the provision was not ambiguous and that it is well settled law that appraisal provisions do not determine coverage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the significance of the fact that coverage in this case was not denied, making Plaintiff's claim wholly unmeritorious.
January 5th, 2011 - Successful Order in Slip and Fall Case
Attorney Kevin F. Gray recently received a successful order from the Court of Appeals. In this negligence action, the plaintiff challenged the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, who had fallen through a hole during a remodeling project at his home, argued that the district court erred by concluding that defendants owed no duty of care. Because there exists no genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether (1) plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, and (2) the hazard was open and obvious, the Court of Appeals affirm.
July 16th, 2010 - Slip and Fall Case
Gordon H. Hansmeier, an attorney at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently received excellent results in a jury trial. The case was regarding a slip and fall in Hennepin County with a difficult set of facts. The jury found no negligence on Gordon's client, so the plaintiff received no money.
April 14, 2010 - Personal Injury case
Troy A. Poetz, an attorney at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently won a jury trial concerning an August 2007 auto accident. Troy represented the defendant in the case, the jury found that the plaintiff did not meet the Minnesota statutory tort threshold and therefore received no money.
April 7, 2010 - Sibley County Judge Grants Summary Judgment in Personal Liability Case
Paul A. Rajkowski and Matt W. Moehrle, attorneys at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently drafted and argued a motion for summary judgment regarding a personal liability case that allegedly occurred when a sled being towed by a pick up collided with a tree causing significant injuries to the passenger of the sled. Plaintiff sued the driver of the pick up and the owner. The motion was brought on behalf of the owner asserting that the owner had no liability as the accident happened outside the State of Minnesota and accordingly the Safety Responsibility Act did not apply. Plaintiff argued that there was a principal-agent relationship between the driver and the owner or alternatively, a joint enterprise existed. The Court sided with the owner and granted summary judgment.
March 11, 2010 - Douglas County Judge Grants Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case
Frank J. Rajkowski and Jessie L. Sogge, attorneys at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently drafted and argued a motion for summary judgment regarding a slip and fall that allegedly occurred in a grocery store during a snowstorm. The court granted a motion for summary judgment and found there was no duty to warn because this accident happened during the course of an ongoing snowstorm.
February 15, 2010 - Wright County Judge Grants Summary Judgment in Insurance Coverage Case
Thomas G. Jovanovich and Matthew W. Moehrle, an attorney at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently argued a motion for summary judgment regarding insurance coverage for defective workmanship in a construction project. The court found that there was no duty to defend or indemnify on the part of the insurance company.
February 11, 2010 - LeSueur County Judge Grants Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case
Frank J. Rajkowski and Jessie L. Sogge, attorneys at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently argued a motion for summary judgment regarding a slip and fall that allegedly occurred in a grocery store during construction work. The court granted a motion for summary judgment due to the open and obvious nature of the condition and the judge found no duty to warn.
January 26, 2010 - Cass County Judge Grants Summary Judgment on Spoliation
Kevin F. Gray and Kristi D. Stanislawski, attorneys at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently argued a motion for summary judgment regarding water infiltration at a townhome project. The court granted a motion for summary judgment on the basis of spoliation of evidence as the defendants were not given the opportunity to inspect the property before repairs were made.
January 14, 2010 - Willmar Judge Grants Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case
Paul A. Rajkowski and Jessie L. Sogge, attorneys at Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. in St. Cloud, MN recently argued a motion for summary judgment regarding a slip and fall that allegedly occurred because a dog cut the Plaintiff off on a sidewalk. The court granted a motion for summary judgment as the dog bite statue does not apply because the focus of the dog was not directed toward the Plaintiff.
|
|
| |
|
|
