Disclaimer: Of course, every case is different. Even in cases similar to those described below, this page cannot be construed as a guarantee of outcome for any other case, nor may contents of anything found on this page be construed as legal advice.
Hedges v. Trailer Express, Inc.
Client: Defendant Trailer Express Inc. d/b/a Trailer Express Manufacturing, Inc.
Case Summary: Plaintiffs, on behalf of their minor son, filed suit against Defendant trailer manufacturer for injuries the son allegedly suffered as a result of a defect in the trailer’s design. Plaintiffs and their son were Oklahoma residents. Defendant manufacturer was a small Missouri corporation with minimal-to-no contact with the State of Oklahoma. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Case Disposition: Order entered in favor of Defendant dismissing case for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Opinion Citation: Hedges v. Trailer Express, Inc., 2015 WL 402857 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2015).
Stine v. Bill Veazey’s Party Store, Inc.
Client: Defendant Bill Veazey’s Party Store, Inc.
Case Summary: Plaintiffs, husband and wife attended a V.I.P. “luau” party at an area casino. While entering the casino’s convention center, husband and wife had to walk under a large Tiki archway statue made of rigid foam. As husband was passing under the Tiki statue, an intoxicated patron began shaking one of the Tiki’s legs, causing the top of the statute to fall upon and injure husband. Husband and wife filed suit against Defendant party store that rented the Tiki statue to the casino, alleging the store either negligently set up the Tiki or failed to instruct the casino on the Tiki’s safe assembly.
Case Disposition: Case tried before the court without a jury. Following trial, the court ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs addressing the facts and law each side believed was dispositive of the case. Judgment was then entered in favor of Defendant party store and against Plaintiffs husband and wife, dismissing case.
Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Lechner
Client: Plaintiff Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company
Case Summary: Employee filed underlying state-court suit against employer seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained when overinflating a tire, causing the tire to explode in employee’s face. Employee alleged that, during the course of his employment, his employer required him to inflate the tire to a dangerous level and that employer issued such instructions with an intent to injure the employee. Employee further alleged employer knew that, by overinflating the tire, the employee would sustain substantial injury. Employer’s insurer, Plaintiff, initiated this federal declaratory action to determine whether employer’s insurance policy covered employee’s claim and suit.
Case Disposition: Summary judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff insurer declaring Plaintiff had no obligation to defend or indemnify any of the defendants in employee’s underlying state-court case. (Opinion Citation: Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Lechner, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Okla. 2012).)
Attorneys: Gregory D. Winningham prepared Plaintiff insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.