Environmental Toxins - Jury Verdicts

Please choose a legal issue for more:



______ $250,000 partial settlement. See Editor's Note. - Contract Contract - Home Inspection - Fungi Contamination - Settlement - Toxic Tort
Facts: Plaintiffs contracted with house inspector, Defendant Woll and his company, Hartwick Inspections, to inspect a home they intended to buy. Defendant did a visual inspection of the property and plaintiffs went ahead with the sale. Plaintiffs noticed defects with the house from their second day of occupancy. They alleged grading problems, tilted windows allowing water into the home, abs...
- from The Georgia Trial Reporter (116225) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ $700,000 default judgment. Breakdown: $250,000 compensatory damages; $250,000 punitive damages; and $200,000 attorney fees. - Legal Malpractice Legal Malpractice - Failure To File Lawsuits - Professional Services - Punitive Damages
Facts: Plaintiff hired defendant attorney to represent his interests in three separate causes of action: a toxic tort case against plaintiff's employer and two personal injury cases involving an automobile accident and a train accident. The automobile accident was settled and the other cases were never filed.

Plaintiff alleged that: (1) defendant settled the automobile case wi...
- from The Ohio Trial Reporter (123442) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ $3,500,000. Breakdown: $1,500,000 joint and several compensatory damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages against each Gage and John Crane. See Editor's Note. - Wrongful Death Products Liability - Asbestos - Wrongful Death - Toxic Tort - Products Liability - Employment - Punitive Damages
Facts: Plaintiff's decedent was employed by a manufacturer of railroad tank cars from 1962 until 1984. During his employment, decedent worked as a shop laborer, a grinder, an inspector and in inventory control. In May 1995, decedent died from pleural mesothelioma. Defendant John Crane manufactured products which contained asbestos and Defendant Gage was a supplier of asbestos products which...
- from The Ohio Trial Reporter (124150) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ $160,000 including $25,000 loss of consortium. - Motorist Receives Verdict for Lung Damage on Toxic Tort Claim
Facts: A Butler County jury returned a $160,000 verdict for a plaintiff who was injured when she was exposed to chemicals near a co-op facility. The jury verdict included an award of $25,000 for loss of consortium.

Plaintiff Kimberly Lentz was operating her motor vehicle with her window open on a roadway which was located near Defendant Harvestland Co-Op's facility. She smelled ...
- from The Ohio Trial Reporter (59526) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ Defense verdict (dismissal) - Toxic Tort Claim Against Employer is Dismissed
Facts: A motion to dismiss was granted on an employee's toxic tort claim against his employer. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.

Plaintiff Wayne Dawsey was a supervisor at Defendant New South Inc.'s wood treatment plant. At the plant, wood was pressure-treated by forcing chromated copper arsenate into the wood cells to protect the wood from decay and insect damage. During his ...
- from The Carolina Verdict Reporter (135248) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ $556,000. Breakdown: $278,000 in pain and suffering and $278,000 in property damage. - HVAC Installer Ordered to Pay Damages for Mold Exposure
Facts: A jury awarded a Fulton County woman $556,000 in a toxic tort lawsuit for mold exposure which allegedly resulted from the improper installation of an HVAC system.

Plaintiff Lyall Sailor contracted with Defendant R. S. Andrews Services, Inc. to install a new HVAC system in her home in Atlanta. The defendant installed the furnace directly on the basement floor. According to...
- from The Georgia Trial Reporter (131081) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ $160,000 including $25,000 loss of consortium. - Motorist Receives Verdict for Lung Damage on Toxic Tort Claim
Facts: A Butler County jury returned a $160,000 verdict for a plaintiff who was injured when she was exposed to chemicals near a co-op facility. The jury verdict included an award of $25,000 for loss of consortium.

Plaintiff Kimberly Lentz was operating her motor vehicle with her window open on a roadway which was located near Defendant Harvestland Co-Op's facility. She smelled ...
- from The Ohio Trial Reporter (134916) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ NET COMBINED VERDICT - TOXIC TORT - FERN DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CHEMICAL FUNGICIDE BENLATE - EXCESSIVE BACTERIA CAUSES LEAF DISTORTION - LOSS OF PROFITS TO 27 SEPARATE GROWERS OF LEATHER LEAF FERNS.
This consolidated action was brought by 27 separate growers of leather leaf ferns, a popular fern used in floral arrangements. The growers, all from Costa Rica, claimed in this consolidated action that the defendant E.I. Du Point De Nemours & Company negligently produced and marketed the fungicide Benlate. The plaintiffs alleged that Benlate caused a distortion in the leaves of the le...
- from The Florida Jury Verdict Review and Analysis (47037) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ Defense verdict. The jury found plaintiffs were 80% comparatively negligent for their injuries. - Ironworkers Found Comparatively Negligent in Toxic Tort Case
Facts: A defense verdict was returned in this toxic tort case involving ironworkers who allegedly suffered respiratory injuries while repairing a lime kiln.

Union ironworkers, Plaintiffs John Armstrong, Robin Matz, Samuel Burton and Robert Pearson, were employed as independent contractors. They repaired a lime kiln for the defendant, Durango-Georgia Paper Company. Plaintiffs cla...
- from The Georgia Trial Reporter (131748) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict
______ NET COMBINED VERDICT - TOXIC TORT - FERN DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CHEMICAL FUNGICIDE BENLATE - EXCESSIVE BACTERIA CAUSES LEAF DISTORTION - LOSS OF PROFITS TO 27 SEPARATE GROWERS OF LEATHER LEAF FERNS.
This consolidated action was brought by 27 separate growers of leather leaf ferns, a popular fern used in floral arrangements. The growers, all from Costa Rica, claimed in this consolidated action that the defendant E.I. Du Point De Nemours & Company negligently produced and marketed the fungicide Benlate. The plaintiffs alleged that Benlate caused a distortion in the leaves of the le...
- from The National Jury Verdict Review and Analysis (47168) Login for Environmental Toxins Verdict

Content provided by JVRA.com. LegalView is not responsible for the accuracy of the information provided above.


Pages:   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Need An Environmental Toxins Attorney?

First Name Last Name Email Address State
Has Your Health Been Negatively Affected?

Please Describe the Injury

Your Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address

Type a Message (optional)


 

Close (x)

Looking for an Attorney?


Please type your question:

Close (x)

logo Find Legal Help for Your Environmental Toxins Case - Submit Your Information Below

Do you need legal assistance with your Environmental Toxins case?
LegalView may be able to help.


Submit your information below for a free, no-cost evaluation.

We'll submit your information to one of our partner firms.
LegalView's partners represent clients throughout the United States, for a very wide range of legal issues. Submit your information now, to see if one of LegalView's partners can help!

* Indicates Required Fields

First name *
Last name *
Email Address *
Phone Number *
()  -

State *
Legal Issue * Environmental Toxins Change
Was There an Injury?
Please Describe The Injury

DISCLAIMER and STATEMENT OF NON-CONFIDENTIALITY

By submitting this form, you agree that completing the above is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.

Disclosure

Legal WebTV Network LLC, LegalView.com, and LegalWebMedia.com are group advertising sponsored by the attorneys identified here. It is not a lawyer referral service. If you submit information on this website [more...]

Legal WebTV Network LLC, LegalView.com, and LegalWebMedia.com are group advertising sponsored by the attorneys identified here. It is not a lawyer referral service. If you submit information on this website, LegalWebMedia.com will submit your information to the law firms that pay for this group advertising and to respond to your requests for information concerning legal services in their assigned local areas. If there is no sponsoring firm in your state, your inquiry will be submitted to one of the sponsoring law firms on a predetermined, rotating basis. If the sponsoring law firm accepts your case, it will associate with licensed attorneys practicing in your state, if required; the sponsoring law firm may also contact other law firms to see if they may be able to assist.

The information provided by the LegalView.com and LegalWebMedia.com websites is for advertising and informational purposes and should not be considered as legal advice from the sponsoring attorneys. The websites contain general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts, or settlements. LegalView.com contains information created by others or supplied through open forums; the sponsoring law firms are not responsible for the accuracy of this information. Any person viewing or receiving information from these websites should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any such information without first seeking appropriate legal advice from an attorney in your area. Legal WebTV Network, LLC expressly disclaims any liability with respect to actions taken or not taken by the recipient based on any or all of the information or contents contained in these websites.

Any information sent to Legal WebTV Network LLC through this website is done using standard Web encryption techology. LegalView.com will exercise all reasonable care, within technological limits, to protect the confidentiality of any information submitted via Internet e-mail or through this website. By accessing this website, you may be seeking an attorney to represent you or legal advice. However, none of the sponsoring attorneys represent you yet.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Any transmission of information, whether via Internet e-mail or through the website, is solely for evaluation purposes by the sponsoring law firms and their associates. The transmission of any information to any attorney sponsoring advertising on LegalView.com or LegalWebMedia.com does not create an attorney-client relationship between the sender and any recipient. An attorney-client relationship can only be created by a written, signed-fee agreement entered into with an attorney. The sponsoring attorneys will treat your information as a confidential communication for the purpose of obtaining legal services or legal advice.

For more information about the sponsoring law firms, please click here.

This form is secure and encrypted. More information about secure forms and your privacy here.