Results

Knowledge + Experience + Determination = Results

The attorneys of Brunkenhoefer, Almaraz & Turman, P.L.L.C. have obtained multi-million dollar recoveries (by verdict and by settlement) in all our practice areas.

Most of the time, when offending parties (usually known as "defendants") pay money to settle a claim, especially a large one, the defendants require that the terms of the settlement be kept confidential. Obviously, such defendants are concerned that the release of the amount of the settlement might encourage others who have similar claims to make their own claims and to use the services of those attorneys who have succeeded against these defendants in the past.

Similarly, when injured parties (usually known as "plaintiffs") do not settle their claims before trial, and then succeed in obtaining a favorable verdict at trial, the defendants usually make an effort to settle the claims after trial. Again, this is done to avoid publicizing the fact that others could make these claims, and to prevent these other claimants from knowing the potential value of their claims.

For example, we obtained the largest verdict in the history of Dimmit County, Texas. In that case, an 18-wheeler operated by one of the nation's largest interstate trucking companies rear-ended a passenger van carrying 15 Mexican citizens (with work visas) from Laredo, Texas to New Mexico. The evidence showed that the truck driver was either fatigued or distracted before hitting the back of the Plaintiffs' slowing van. The initial impact propelled the van down the road and off to the right where it struck the back of a parked passenger car belonging to the flagman for the roadway contractor. The flagman's car was improperly parked within the 30 foot "clear zone" that is supposed to extend from the edge of the roadway. As a result, Plaintiffs sued both the trucking company and the roadway contractor. All the van occupants sustained injuries. Nine (9) of the Plaintiffs settled their claims at mediation, and another five of the Plaintiffs (whose injuries were more serious) settled prior to trial. Only the claims of the van driver and his family proceeded to trial. At some point in the crash event, the driver sustained multiple blows to the head, one or more of which resulted in a serious brain injury. At trial, since the driver had injuries to the front and back of his head, Defendants disputed which of them had caused the blow to the head which actually resulted in the most serious brain injuries, and which resulted in emergency brain surgery followed by about 6 months of hospitalization. At the time of trial, the driver had regained the ability to walk and perform most activities of daily living, but he still had permanent brain damage that affected his ability to process information, such that he required "cueing" to perform most activities. His inability to remember things and to understand situations caused him to sometimes become frustrated. The family sought counseling to learn how to cope with these permanent changes to their loved one, but their relationships with him had been permanently altered. The driver's past medical was $1,309,870.14. The present value of the lifecare plans presented by Plaintiffs ranged from $3.6-5.4 million. The present value of his past lost wages was $41,443.00, and that of his future wage-earning capacity was $488,223.00. The wife of the driver incurred medical expenses of $1,540.00 for herself and $1,395.00 for her son, while the two daughters' medical was included in the driver's bills. The jury returned a verdict against the trucking company and the roadway contractor totaling $19,566.610.14, of which 60% was apportioned to the trucking company and 40% to the roadway contractor (as we had argued). Since the trucking company settled the claims against it prior to the entry of judgment, judgment was entered only against the roadway contractor. The roadway contractor attempted to appeal the judgment against it, but then settled as well.

A few years earlier, the attorneys at Brunkenhoefer, Almaraz & Turman, P.L.L.C. settled an oilfield case after it was tried to a verdict. In that case, a compressor mechanic was injured when a pipe (being used to supply natural gas from the well to his company's compressor) spun due to unexpected pressure on the line. Our client contended that the pressure on the line was caused by the actions of the operator's on-site "company man." Our client sustained significant injuries to his leg, knee, hand and head, and he was unable to work for several months following the incident. Upon considering all of the evidence, including a computer simulation of the site, medical animations and illustrations of our client's injuries, the testimony of many fact witnesses, and the testimony of liability, vocational and economic experts, the district court jury awarded over $3,100,00.00 in damages. Thereafter, the defendant-operator and its insurance company paid a confidential amount to resolve the claim and remove the judgment.

More recently, we obtained a multi-million dollar verdict in another motor vehicle/road construction negligence case in Nueces County, Texas. In that case, our client worked for a subcontractor setting barrels in a highway construction zone. An elderly driver swerved to avoid another vehicle, ran off the road and struck our client in the construction zone. We alleged that the driver was negligent for his inattentive driving, and we alleged that the general contractor overseeing the construction project was negligent for failing to maintain a proper "clear zone" (i.e., keeping construction workers and subcontractors a safe distance from the roadway to protect against dangers like run-off-the-road vehicles). After a multi-week trial, a Nueces County, Texas jury determined that the driver, our client's employer and the general contractor were all negligent in causing our client's paralysis and partial blindness and awarded $9,421,898.44 in damages. While the other defendants have settled our client's (and his family's) claims against them, the general contractor has appealed the judgment of the Court and that appeal is presently pending.

While we are always willing and able to take our clients' cases to trial, our clients do not always have to go all the way through trial and an appeal in order to achieve large recoveries for their injuries. In fact, most cases settle long before trial and we have achieved confidential pre-trial settlements of most of our clients' cases, including these:

Workplace Negligence (Oilfield): Plaintiffs were members of a lease services crew that had been hired by a pipeline operator to change a meter on an old pipeline that was being brought back on line. The activity of changing the meter required some workers to remove the old meter, before other workers (welders) would install the new meter. While the old meter was being removed, residual gas from inside the pipeline migrated out of the pipeline. When the gas came in contact with an ignition source – believed to be a spark caused by those hammering out the old meter, or a flame from the welders who were about to install the new one – an explosion or flash fire occurred, thereby resulting in serious burns to the workers. Eventually, one worker died from his injuries and three others survived with serious burns. Plaintiffs alleged that they had been assured by the on-site consultant hired by the pipeline operator that the line had been purged and it was safe to work on. The pipeline operator denied that it was responsible for purging the line. Moreover, the defendant argued that the on-site consultant was not its employee, so it should not be held responsible for any actions of the consultant. Through discovery, we were able to show that the consultant was, in fact, the employee of the pipeline operator. Moreover, we established that the consultant had failed to properly purge the pipeline before allowing the lease services workers to hammer and cut on the pipeline. Just prior to jury selection, the defendants settled all remaining claims. Please read more on our Workplace Accidents practice.

Trucking/Workplace Negligence: Plaintiffs were seven laborers who were driving from Laredo, Texas to a construction site in Ohio where they were going to build concrete silos. As they were passing through San Antonio, Texas, the van in which they were riding came in contact with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer being operated by a large, interstate carrier. As a result of the initial contact, the bumpers of the truck and van became locked in a way that caused the van to lose control, spin out in front of the truck, and strike an attenuator (i.e., the shock absorbing metal barrier at the end of a concrete wall). The 18-wheeler then proceeded to strike the van again before the truck was able to stop. Two men died in the crash, and the other 5 van occupants were significantly injured. We represented the family of one of the deceased passengers, and one of the injured passengers as well. Since the initial point of contact could not be determined from the physical evidence, and the testimony of some witnesses suggested that the truck came into the van's lane while other witnesses said the van moved into the truck's lane, we sued the trucking company and the employer of the van driver and alleged that both drivers were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles. With respect to the truck, we noted that, as the crash occurred in a construction zone, the traffic lanes were narrowed such that the truck only had a foot of clearance on either side of its trailer, so it was more likely that the truck was unable to maintain its lane. Information from the truck's on-board computer provided evidence that the truck was also speeding through the construction zone, which further impaired the truck driver's ability to maintain his traffic lane. As for the employer of the van driver, we noted that the driver of the van had a poor driving history, he was unlicensed, and it appeared that he was traveling even faster than the speeding 18-wheeler when the initial contact occurred. Please read more on our Trucking Accident practice.

Maritime Negligence (Fire Aboard a Vessel): Plaintiffs were the crew of a shrimp boat that, at the time, was serving as a "chase" boat for another vessel that was surveying the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. [NOTE: A "chase" boat keeps other vessels clear of any equipment that the lead vessel may have deployed.] The shrimp boat caught fire one night and, before the survey vessel could get to them, the crew of the shrimp boat jumped into the water and disappeared. We sued the owner of the shrimp boat for the wrongful death of our clients, and alleged that the deaths were caused by a defect in the air handler (air conditioning system) and the defendant's failure to provide sufficient fire suppression and life-saving equipment. The source and the cause of the fire was highly contested, as the defendant's expert opined that the fire started in the crew quarters and was likely caused by a cigarette or something left on the stove. Even though the vessel burned to the hull, we hired an excellent marine fire expert in Florida to assist in describing the ignition and spread of the fire from the wheelhouse back through the crew compartment. As a result, the claims were eventually paid and the families of the deceased were compensated for their losses...as much as possible under the circumstances. See more on the firm's Maritime Practice.

Workplace Negligence (Operation of Land Rig): Our clients were a floorhand, a motorman and derrickman of a drilling crew. As they and the rest of the drilling crew were "tripping" pipe, the wind picked up and the pipe began to smash against the side of the derrick. The crew attempted to shut the operations down, but the company man for the well operator refused their requests. Shortly thereafter, as a section of the pipe was being lifted in the derrick, the pipe "hung up" under one of the cross-members of the derrick and then snapped back under pressure, as it broke free from the beam. The floorhand was struck in the arm, the motorman was struck on the head, and the derrickman watched from above as his son (the floorhand) was injured by the swinging bottom end of the pipe. We obtained a temporary restraining order against the drilling contractor to prevent the destruction of evidence while we conducted our investigation. Eventually, we filed suit against the operator for the company man's failure to shut down the operations when he was in control of the situation and the danger was apparent to him. Liability was contested, as the operator contended that it did not have the requisite control over the drilling contractor and its crew, and that the company was an independent contractor. However, in addition to producing evidence that the company man was in control of the operations, we also discovered that the drilling contract treated the company man as the operator's employee for purposes of "indemnity" and we contended that, if he was an employee for that purpose, he was an employee at the time of the incident. Mediation was held, a good result was obtained for our clients, and a college fund was even started for the floorhand's infant son. Please read more on our Workplace Accidents practice.

Trucking Negligence: In this Dallas County, Texas case, our client was a Louisiana resident who alleged that, while he was traveling on a freeway in Dallas, Texas, a trucking company's inexperienced driver crossed into our client's lane, collided with our clients passenger vehicle, and then caused our client to sustain a secondary impact with the concrete center divider. Amongst other defenses, the trucking company alleged that its driver was sufficiently experienced to drive an 18-wheeler and that its drivers actions did not cause or contribute to the crash in question. Our client's injuries resulted in a back surgery. The case was settled prior to the beginning of trial. See more on Trucking Accidents.

Maritime Negligence (Barge Operations): Our client was a barge "leaderman." He and his co-workers were attempting to set up a floating platform off the coast of Africa, so that the Nigerian oil could be transferred to tankships. [NOTE: Interestingly, this "single point mooring" became necessary when Nigerian rebels blew up the docks and, after they assumed power, they realized that they would also be overthrown if they did not soon get the oil flowing again. However, they could not simply repair the docks as the "new" rebels tended to shoot the construction workers. As a result, this SPM had to be installed about a mile from shore...outside the range of most small arms ammunition.] As the barge crew was setting one of the massive chains (used to secure the huge barge to the ocean floor) over the side, the cable broke on one of the winches used to hold the chain and control its movement. Suddenly, chain weighing over 300 pounds per link was flying across the deck of the barge and, in the process, Plaintiff was struck in the ankle and elbow. Plaintiff's foot was nearly severed, and his elbow was crushed by the force of the chain. Although Plaintiff's foot was saved, it took many surgeries to repair the damage to Plaintiff's ankle and elbow joints. We filed suit against the owner of the barge and the employees of the crew. After several years, and a trip to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, we were able to achieve a resolution that was satisfactory to our client. Please read more on our Maritime Injury practice.

Workplace Negligence: The Plaintiff was a truck driver who hauled "tailings" and other materials for a mining company. At the direction of one or more of the mining company employees, Plaintiff's "dump" trailer was loaded with wet, sticky dirt. When Plaintiff later attempted to dump the dirt from his trailer, the hydraulic piston on the dump trailer failed, causing the trailer to come crashing down on the "fifth wheel" (back end) of the Plaintiff's truck. The force of the impact threw Plaintiff up in the air inside the cab, thereby causing him to sustain head and back injuries. In the subsequent lawsuit, we alleged that the mining company failed to maintain its trailer, failed to provide a slick bed liner for the trailer so that the sticky mud could be safely offloaded, and failed to train and supervise its employees (who allegedly overloaded the trailer). See more about our Workplace Negligence Practice.

Homeowner Negligence: Two children were injured when an American Bulldog attacked a little girl, and her twin brother came to her rescue. The little girl was severely injured, and her brother had defensive wounds.

Trucking/Workplace Negligence: Plaintiff was a cargo inspector. As he was checking the contents through the top hatch of a petrochemical tank trailer, the truck driver drove off with the inspector hanging from the trailer. When the truck driver discovered that the inspector was still aboard, he stopped suddenly, thereby throwing Plaintiff against the side of the trailer. Plaintiff sustained a knee injury as well as a significant back injury. In addition to other theories, we sued the trucking company for the driver's failure to perform a pre-trip "walkaround" which would have told him that the inspector was still on the trailer. Moreover, we sued the terminal at which the incident occurred as it became clear during the course of discovery that the terminal's employee should not have given the "departure" paperwork to the Spanish-speaking truck driver before it was safe for him to leave the terminal. You may wish to read more on our Trucking Accident practice.

* * *

Again, there is no guarantee that our past results will occur for our future clients, but we simply wish to illustrate our comfort in handling significant cases. Though such cases are complex, they are not too complicated for us. In addition, while these cases are typically quite expensive to prosecute (for example, it can cost several hundred thousand dollars to prosecute some of our cases), we believe in our clients, and we are willing and able to put our money to work for the benefit of their cases.

Top of page | Practice Areas | Case Results | Attorneys | Locations | Contact the Firm | Sitemap | Disclaimer | Home