- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Burn and Scald Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- Missouri City Personal Injuries
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Clear Lake Personal Injury Lawyer
- Deer Park Personal Injury Attorney
- Galveston Personal Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney
- Sugar Land Personal Injury Lawyer
- Texas City Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Deer Park Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Galveston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Pasadena Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Sugar Land Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Trucking Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Houston Fatal Truck Accident Attorney
- Galveston Truck Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Sugar Land Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Conroe Truck Accident Lawyer
- Galveston 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Pasadena Truck Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Clear Lake Truck Accident Lawyer
- Deer Park Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Accident Lawsuits
- Texas City 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Auto Accident Attorney
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Clear Lake Car Accident Lawyer
- Galveston Car Accident Lawyer
- Houston Accident Attorney
- Houston Accident Injury Lawyer
- Houston Car Accident Lawyer
- Pasadena Car Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land Car Accident Lawyer
- Texas City Car Accident Lawyer
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- Houston Drunk Driver Accident Lawyer
- Dram Shop and Liquor Liability Cases in Houston
- Fatal Drunk Driving Accidents
- Galveston Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas Drunk Driver Accident Statistics
- Conroe Drunken Driver Accidents
- Pasadena Drunk Driving Accidents
- Sugar Land Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas City Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Attorney
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Pasadena Work Injury Lawyer
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- Houston Lifting Injury
- More...
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Galveston Work Injury Lawyer
- Sugar Land Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- Houston Trench Collapse Attorney
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Contact Us
Houston Trench Collapse Accidents
Michael Grossman and the Attorneys at Grossman Law Offices Want to Help You With Issues Stemming from a Trench Collapse

In the United States, thousands of miles of trenches are dug on an annual basis for a variety of purposes – installing utilities, burying cable or pouring foundations, just to name a few.
If dug improperly, trenching and excavation puts employees at tremendous risk of serious injury or wrongful death.
The collapse of a trench or a cave in poses the greatest threat to employees and can cause a wide array of life-threatening injuries: brain trauma, spinal cord injuries, suffocation, crushed bones and drowning. If you have been injured or a loved one has been killed as a result of a trench collapse, then you may be eligible to file a personal injury lawsuit or wrongful death claim to recovery damages for the harm that has been done to you or your family member. Michael Grossman and his associates at Grossman Law Offices have compiled 20 years of experience handling wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits resulting from trench collapses and other construction-related accidents. We want to help you understand your legal rights, so you feel more comfortable with the tragic situation in which you find yourself.
OSHA Recommended Trench Safety Measures and Regulations
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created to protect the safety of workers, and OSHA suggests the use of three different types of safety systems for trenches:
- Sloping refers to the method in which the trench wall is dug. By angling the wall of the trench away from the excavation, employees are afforded a degree of safety while working in the trench.
- Shoring is the act of installing aluminum or hydraulic support beams to reduce the chances of the walls of the trench crumbling.
- Shielding is the use of a trench box to keep soil from caving in on the workers.
In order to address the extreme danger inherent in trench collapse, OSHA has passed several regulations regarding the safe construction of trenches:
- If a trench is five-feet deep or deeper, then it must have a protective system in place to safeguard workers. If the trench is 25-feet deep or deeper, then a certified engineer must design the protective system.
- A competent person must inspect the trench’s condition on a daily basis before employees go to work in it.
- Heavy equipment should be kept at least two feet away from trenches, and ladders or stairs should be provided to all trenches greater then four feet deep.
All employers owe a duty to take reasonable care to keep their workplace safe for their employees. In order to do so from a legal standpoint, the employer must follow all OSHA rules and regulations and make sure all employees are properly outfitted and trained to perform the duties of the job for which they were hired.
What to Know About Workman’s Compensation in Construction Cases
If your employer has violated any of these OSHA regulations resulting is a trench collapse that injured you or killed a loved one, then you may have the right to file a workers’ compensation claim or a wrongful death lawsuit. However, workers’ compensation laws are not easily comprehended. Construction companies are not required by the state of Texas to purchase workman’s compensation insurance, and how to pursue compensation depends entirely on whether or not your employer carried workers’ comp coverage, known as a subscriber, or didn’t, known as a nonsubscriber. You must first determine whether or not your employer is a subscriber or a non-subscriber, because the method for recovering compensation differs completely for subscribers and nonsubscribers.
Employers who choose to carry workers’ comp insurance receive protection against lawsuits in the event of a work-related injury. In this case, any settlement must be negotiated with the insurance company. The non-subscribers; however, are subject to lawsuits. In order to punish nonsubscribers for creating litigation, victims face much easier standards of proving negligence once the case does go to court. With danger lurking everywhere on a construction site, you would think that every employer would purchase workmen’s compensation insurance. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, for workers’ comp insurance is very expensive. Thus, many companies decline to purchase the insurance. Additionally, in order to avoid a lawsuit, many employers will pretend that they have the insurance when a worker is injured. You can’t take your employer’s word if he or she claims the company subscribes to workers’ comp insurance. You need an experienced Houston construction accident lawyer to reveal the truth, so you know what course of action to pursue.
Subscribers

Subscribing to workers’ comp insurance provides employers more than just insurance – they also receive protection against lawsuits. If you are injured or a family member has been killed in a trench collapse, you cannot sue a subscribing employer unless he or she has committed gross negligence resulting in a fatality. However, that doesn’t mean you’re going to receive the compensation you deserve.
While it may seem that the insurance carrier should be concerned with looking out for the needs of injured parties, and after you’ve been injured or a loved one has been killed in a trench collapse all of the medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering would be compensated adequately. However, insurance companies are in business to make money, not help people.
Both insurance companies and non-subscribing employers will try to avoid fairly compensating their injured employees, and countless construction workers each year in Houston and around Texas are unfairly denied the fair compensation to which they are entitled.
While the purpose of workmen’s’ compensation laws is to decrease excessive litigation caused by accidents and injuries in the work place, sometimes an experienced Houston construction accident lawyer is required to make the insurance companies give you the compensation you deserve.
Rest assured that the insurance company will come armed with a team of specialized lawyers who will attempt to bully you into accepting a settlement that does not adequately compensate you for your injuries and lost wages just to increase their profitability. You need he help of an attorney who can differentiate between a fair settlement and one that does not meet your needs.
Exceptions for Suing Subscriber Employers
There are only two instances that allow an injured employee to file a lawsuit over an injury suffered during a trench collapse whether or not the employer has subscribed to workers’ compensation insurance:
- If your loved one’s death was caused by his or her employer’s gross negligence, then you may file a wrongful death lawsuit. If your loved one dies in a trench collapse after the trench was declared safe by an inspector who simply made a miscalculation, then that is standard negligence. However, if your loved one’s employer ordered the deceased to work in a trench that the employer knew was unsafe, then that’s gross negligence.
- Or, in some cases, someone else’s negligence besides the employer may have led to a trench collapse that injured your or killed your loved one. The owner of the property may not have provided safe working conditions, another contractor may have placed heavy equipment too near the trench leading to the collapse, or the engineer who designed the trench may have done so improperly. In this case, you can file a lawsuit against the responsible party or parties instead of the employer. In this case, you will need the assistance of a skilled and experienced attorney who knows how to devise strategy for trench collapse cases for a complex work-related claim like this. Identifying all responsible parties and holding them accountable for the injuries they have caused requires experience.
Non-subscribers
Particularly in construction where insurance costs can be enormous, many employers avoid subscribing to workers’ comp insurance. If you are facing a claim against a so-called non-subscriber, then you will likely need the help of a crafty lawyer to ensure you will receive the just restitution you deserve.
Since workers compensation laws in Texas are designed to punish non-subscribers, the damages injured workers can receive will be greater than if your employer had subscribed to workers comp insurance and the burden of proof for negligence is easier to meet.
Since the law only gets more complex in non-subscriber cases, you need the knowledge of a crafty Houston construction accident lawyer to help you through the challenging process.
Initially, the victim, also known as the plaintiff, needs to file a claim with the employer, informing him or her of the injury suffered in the trench collapse and the requested restitution for the harm caused. If the employer agrees to pay or negotiates a settlement, then the case is resolved, allowing everyone to return to the enjoyment of his or her life. However, that’s not generally the way claims against nonsubscribers work out. In most cases, the employer refuses to negotiate or pay, and the victim must file a lawsuit to secure the compensation he or she deserves. As the injured party, the plaintiff holds the burden of proof for demonstrating that the negligence of the employer caused the trench collapse, resulting in the injury and that the injury has incurred medical expenses, lost salary, pain and suffering. Fortunately for the injured, the standard of proof for negligence is much easier to meet than gross negligence and is fairly easy to prove.
Defenses of the Nonsubscribers
If your or your loved one’s employer declined to purchase workers’ compensation insurance, then he or she isn’t likely to become generous and agree to pay an injured employee or the loves one of a wrongfully killed employee for the harm done to him or her. However, since workers comp laws are designed to punish nonsubscribers, they have little recourse to avoid paying compensation to injured employees. In fact, there is only one defense afforded nonsubscribers.
Sole Proximate Cause
The sole proximate cause defense is the only true defense a non-subscribing employer has following a trench collapse that injures an employee. That means they are going to blame you for your own injuries or your loved one for his or her wrongful death. The sole proximate cause defense is to prove that the employee’s injury was caused 100 percent by the employee’s own negligence. They will attempt to sully your reputation or that or your family member, attempting to show that you or your loved one was a routinely negligent employee who caused the trench collapse with your own or his or her own negligence.
You can bet that the nonsubscribing employer, who wouldn’t spend money on workers’ comp coverage to protect his or her employees, will be glad to pay for attorneys to defend themselves. They will come to court armed with experienced construction accident specialists who know how to make victims look negligent if they don’t have an equally crafty lawyer to deflect the fault back onto the negligent employer.
Employer-Employee Relationship
The only way nonsubscribers can avoid liability after a trench collapse that injures an employee is the sole proximate cause defense, but many nonsubscribers begin trying to avoid that responsibility before the accident has even occurred. Employers do not owe a duty to provide safe working conditions for contractors or temporary workers, so many construction companies hire their employees as contractors. Then, if injuries occur, the employer can avoid paying compensation by denying the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Why should an employer be responsible for your injuries, if you were never actually employed by them?

While many Houston construction companies will make the claim that their workers are contractors, when the employer knows an actual employer-employee relationship exists in the eyes of the law. In many of these cases, an injured worker can still obtain compensation. Just because your employer claims you are a contractor doesn’t mean that’s how the law classifies you. Legally speaking, you may in fact be an employee who is entitled to recover fair compensation for injuries you suffered on the job.
You need a Houston construction accident attorney who knows how to establish the employer-employee relation. Our attorneys know you must meet at least one the following requirements:
- The employer withheld social security or taxes from your paycheck.
- The employer supplied the essential equipment for the job .
- A specific work schedule has been set for the job by the employer.
- The employer managed, oversaw or inspected your work .
- You performed a task or signed a document that limits your rights while working for the employer, for example: taking a drug test or signing a document that states compliance with an employee handbook.
- You have been employed for an undetermined period of time and not just for a single job.
- You are paid by a salary or an hourly wage and not on a case-by-case basis.
Our attorneys will investigate thoroughly to prove your employer-employee relationship by demonstrating the existence of one of these standards. We will examine pay stubs, depose co-workers, and review contracts to prove that you were an employee when you were injured on the job.
Types of Damages
The loved ones of an employee killed in a trench collapse may pursue two types of damages: wrongful death damages and survival damages.
Wrongful Death Damages
Only spouses, children, parents and in rare cases siblings may pursue wrongful death damages. Wrongful death damages may include compensation for:
- The victim’s medical expenses prior to death
- Funeral bills
- Loss of financial support supplied by the victim
- Mental and emotional turmoil
- The loss of the unique consortium provided by the deceased
Survival Damages
Survival damages provide the family of the deceased compensation for the damages the victim could have pursued had he or she only suffered injuries in the trench collapse and not died. Only the closest living relative of the victim is permitted the opportunity to seek survival damages, descending from spouse to children to parents and finally to siblings. Examples of survival damages include:
- Medical bills the victim would have incurred had he or she just been injured.
- Lost wages for the hospital stay the victim would have had if he or she had survived and recovered.
- Lost earning potential due to possible long-term debilities.
- The victim’s physical pain and suffering.
- Emotional or mental trauma the victim would endured during the rehabilitation process if he or she had survived.
Claims for wrongful death and survival damages require separate strategies and must also be filed separately. Inexperienced lawyers can easily be confused by the complexities of these procedures, and people with no legal experience at all will be doomed to failure. You need the help of an experienced Houston construction accident attorney.
We Can Help

After twenty years of litigating wrongful death and personal injury cases involving trench collapses, our attorneys have mastered these procedures, and we can ensure all your family members who have suffered due to the loss of your loved one will receive damages for the pain and suffering they have incurred. To find out how we can help or just to get answers to questions about your case, feel free to call us for a free consultation at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free). We’re waiting to help you.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
$3,784.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential








