Testimonials

The attorneys at O'Hanlon, McCollom & Demerath have handled many different types of cases for individuals across the state of Texas.  The types of cases we have handled range from small automobile cases to major product liability cases.  To view some representative cases our firm has handled, click below.

Product Liability / General Negligence

Facts and Allegations:

Plaintiff was operating a defective Vermeer 8550 tractor, on and near a street named Regatta Cove in Travis County, Texas.  While operating the tractor, Plaintiff began driving the machine down a graded embankment toward the area where Plaintiff was to begin operating the tractor’s implement.  Suddenly and without warning, as a result of poor maintenance and defective conditions in the product, the tractor began to coast without the benefit of the braking power usually supplied by the tractor’s hydrostatic transmission.  The tractor was coasting in the general direction of a group of men working on the premises and gaining speed.  As the tractor quickly accelerated down the embankment, Plaintiff aggressively attempted to slow the tractor’s increasing momentum by any means necessary, including reducing the flow to the hydrostatic transmission, dropping the front and rear implements to the ground, and changing the course of the tractor to an uphill course; however, the tractor behaved as though there was no hydraulic pressure.  All systems were unresponsive.  Further, while attempting all other means to slow the machine, Plaintiff was attempting to actuate the conventional braking mechanism, which did little to slow the forward progression.  After proceeding approximately 40 yards downhill and reaching a speed that it would normally be unable to attain under its own power, the defective tractor slammed into a small cedar tree and fell sideways off a 6 foot drop off, coming to rest on its right side.            

While the tractor was in mid-air falling off the embankment, Plaintiff attempted to jump away from the machine in an effort to avoid injury.  Unfortunately, Plaintiff was unable to put enough distance between himself and the falling tractor.  The machine had a metal sunshade affixed to the top of the roll bar located over the operator’s seat.  The sunshade of the tractor landed across Plaintiff’s femurs a short distance below his hips, severely injuring and permanently disabling Plaintiff.

The tractor in question was designed and manufactured by Defendants Vermeer Manufacturing Company and Vermeer Equipment of Texas, Inc., and distributed to and maintained by Defendant Holt Rental Services, Ltd.

Damages:

Plaintiff’s injury resulted in bilateral femur fracture as well as left calcaneus and talar fracture.  The left femur was fractured above the knee and the right femur was fractured near the right hip.  Plaintiff’s experts included medical providers, life care planners, vocational experts, economists, and mechanical engineers.

Automobile Collision

Defendant was driving a 2002 Ford Taurus owned by Defendant’s husband’s employer, and was headed northbound in the right hand (outside) lane of RM 620 N.  An innocent bystander was driving her Lexus RX300 in a lawful and prudent manner while traveling in the right hand (outside) lane also headed northbound on RM 620 N in Travis County, Texas.  When traffic in front of the innocent bystander’s vehicle came to a stop, she gradually applied her brakes and came to a complete stop at a safe distance behind a 2003 Mazda driven by the Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s two minor children were back seat passengers in Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident.  The innocent bystander was directly behind Plaintiff.  Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to observe traffic conditions directly in front of her, failed to control the speed of the vehicle she was driving, failed to timely apply her brakes, failed to take proper evasive action by swerving to the left or right and violently collided with the rear of the innocent bystander’s vehicle at approximately 65 miles per hour.  The force of the impact from the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle caused the innocent bystander’s vehicle to be propelled forward and collided with the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle, which then propelled Plaintiff’s Mazda forward causing it to collide with the rear of a stationary 2002 International truck.  Significant damage was sustained by all vehicles involved, as well as their occupants.

Injuries/Damages:

Plaintiff’s injuries required an anterior cervical discectomy with interbody allograft fusion and multiple cervical facet joint injections.  Additionally, she suffered from muscle spasms, sleep disturbance, and migraines and missed approximately 6 months of work.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s minor children suffered multiple lacerations requiring stitches and staples to repair.  

Employment Discrimination

A discrimination case was brought by our firm on behalf of four minority Plaintiffs against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The Plaintiffs were four African American males, and one Hispanic male.  All four plaintiffs were employed as auditors for the Community Justice Assistance Division of Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  While employed, each unsuccessfully applied for promotions that became available in that Division.  Upon rejection of said applications, each Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Human Rights and subsequently brought this suit alleging racial discrimination motivated the TDCJ promotion board members decisions in this case, to promote applicants of a different race than Plaintiffs.

The four minority plaintiffs contend that virtually no minorities in the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD), where they were all employed as program auditors, were promoted to management level positions (grade 17 or higher) during the period from 1995 to 1998, until Plaintiffs filed their administrative charges of discrimination with the EEOC and Texas Commission on Human Rights and this suit.  Plaintiffs proceeded under two theories of recovery.  First, Plaintiffs alleged disparate treatment claims; that in each individual hiring decision named in the pleadings one or more Plaintiffs was more qualified than the selected applicant.  Second, Plaintiffs alleged a disparate impact claim, asserting in that a statistical analysis shows that a statistically significant impact on qualified minority applicants who were unsuccessful for management level positions (G-17 and higher jobs), during the relevant period, as a result of the application of the purportedly non-discriminatory promotional practices of the Defendant.

After multiple denials of motions for summary judgment and two interlocutory appeals, Defendants finally agreed to enter into settlement negotiations in the case. 

Insurance Bad Faith

In June of 1998, the defendants, two title policy corporations, issued a title policy to plaintiffs insuring the title of a home to be constructed at on Waterfront Ave., Austin, Texas.  In the late summer of 1998, construction began on this home in reliance on information regarding the state of Plaintiffs’ title provided by the defendants.  During the course of construction, Plaintiffs became aware that defendants had outright missed four separate deed restrictions in the title policy exemptions from coverage.  The restrictions defendants failed to include consisted of a 40 foot setback on two sides of the home, and three separate restrictions on the location and nature of the driveway.

The plaintiffs were sued by adjoining lot owners for violating the restrictive covenants not exempted on the title policy.  Defendants agreed to unconditionally defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in this underlying lawsuit.

Over the course of the underlying lawsuit, construction was forced to halt due to the uncertainty of the outcome regarding the title defects.  During that time, five separate claims were made by Plaintiffs, as their actual damages in the form of legal services and construction loan extensions mounted.  Defendants authorized these payments by stating to the plaintiffs through their attorney in the underlying case that these expenses would be taken care of after the underlying lawsuit was settled.  No formal denial of claims or reservation of rights was ever sent.  

The underlying lawsuit was settled, the home was completed, and the actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs were fixed.  Fifteen (15) months after the first demand for damages, after defendants had unconditionally defended the underlying claim, the defendants denied liability for the expenses.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code, Sec. 21.21, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as negligence and negligent misrepresentation.  Defendants denied policy coverage, and denied they accepted liability for the claims.

Premises Liability

On May 25, 2002 at approximately 12:00, Plaintiff visited a drinking establishment located on 6^th Street in Austin, Texas.  Plaintiff is employed as an automobile valet, and had just finished working for the evening. 

Upon entering Defendant’s property, Plaintiff walked to a rear area of the premises down an extremely steep flight of stairs.  The stairs in question in this matter had recently been replaced, and while they were formerly covered with a non-slip surface, they were not at the time of the incident.  Defendants had allowed the floor to become wet as patrons of the crowded establishment spilled their beverages on the stairs.  Testimony from employees of the bar established agents of the premises owner were aware of the dangerous condition.  Conversations were had among staff members that there was a high degree of likelihood that someone would “bust their ass” going up and down the stairs, and they looked forward to viewing the display each night.

After remaining on the premises for approximately 20 to 30 minutes, Plaintiff began returning to the front area of the establishment carrying a glass container in each hand.   Plaintiff had climbed approximately 5 of the 10 stairs leading to the front of the establishment when his rubber soled shoes slipped on the new stairs, causing Plaintiff to fall forward.  As this happened, Plaintiff instinctively attempted to catch himself from falling to the floor with his hands.  Unfortunately, the glass he was carrying remained in between his hand and the stairs as the two met.  The force of the fall caused the glass to shatter, lacerating Plaintiff’s left palm and interior tendons.

After collecting and reviewing medical records and affidavits from witnesses, Plaintiff and Defendant were able to reach an amicable settlement as follows.

On the Job Injury

Facts and Allegations:                                       

This action resulted from a stage assembly accident that occurred in Austin, Texas.  Plaintiff was employed as a general laborer for with companies who were employed to assemble and disassemble large event stages at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas.  Defendants were not subscribers to the Texas worker’s compensation system. 

Plaintiff was assembling a stage for a heavy metal concert at Reliant Stadium.  The day after a show, Plaintiff and his co-workers immediately began to disassemble the stage.  Plaintiff’s supervisor had been working extremely long hours, and in an effort to maintain his stamina, had allegedly been using cocaine.

The stage that was utilized for this particular show consisted of six towers.  Each tower was approximately 75 feet tall and consisted of three segments of 25 feet each.

On the day of the incident, the supervisor was in a rush to finish the deconstruction of the stage and was not using the proper safety procedures.  As the stage was disassembled, it was done so in an unsafe manner.  Objections to the disassembly procedure were made by multiple workers, including plaintiff, however, the supervisor disregarded these warnings and instructed the crane operator to set the tower down and instructed the workers to begin disassembling the tower in an unsafe manner. As a result, one of the 2 ton segments fell onto Plaintiff’s foot, crushing and trapping the tips of his toes beneath it, necessitating amputation of portions of the same.                                                                          

Injuries/Damages:

After the early stages of gangrene set in to plaintiff’s toes, amputation of portions of three toes became necessary.