In our 25 years of practice, we’ve won thousands of car accident, 18-wheeler accident, personal injury, wrongful death cases and more. Below are some examples of our recent case recoveries obtained through settlements and jury verdicts. While these results illustrate the fact that we’re good at what we do, what the numbers don’t show is that our greatest satisfaction comes from knowing that we’ve helped so many clients get the justice they deserve.
Our attorneys won $31,000,000 in a Dallas County Court judgment against a Fort Worth bar who over-served a customer, ultimately resulting in a serious car accident. Our client sustained numerous bodily injuries and a severe brain injury, rendering him completely blind and deaf. Our attorneys filed suit against the bar who over-served the drunken driver and ultimately resolved the case in court with a large recovery that reflects the true cost of how our client’s life has been upended by the negligence of an alcohol provider who broke Texas law.
Following a fatal 18-wheeler accident, the family of a deceased woman hired Grossman Law Offices to investigate the matter and report our findings. The family initially knew very little about what happened in the accident, only that the mother of the family was killed and that there was an 18-wheeler involved. Our attorneys mobilized immediately upon being hired, and, along with our accident reconstructionist, conducted a thorough analysis of the scene. Early in the case, it became apparent what had happened: The driver of an 18-wheeler made an abrupt lane change, forcing our client’s car into the grass median of the interstate. Once the vehicle drove into the grass, traction was lost, causing the car to swerve back onto the highway wherein the vehicle then struck a parked 18-wheeler. It was obvious that our clients had a case, and they instructed us to move forward with a wrongful death suit. However, what was less clear is which trucking company was primarily responsible. On one hand, it could be argued that the initial 18-wheeler set the whole chain of events into motion when that driver made an illegal lane change. On the other hand, the second 18-wheeler was illegally parked in an emergency lane, in violation of federal statute, and it could easily be said that if he had not been parked there, the victim would have lived since the car would have just been able to come to a stop on the road’s shoulder. Naturally, this fact pattern created an opportunity for the two trucking companies to point the finger at one another. Our attorneys aggressively litigated the case, never allowing either defendant to escape responsibility for their contribution to the accident. Further, it would be a monumental understatement to suggest that this case took a lot of effort to successfully resolve. Our attorneys took the depositions of dozens of people involved, travelling to several different states in the process. Further, we invested many hundreds of hours of man power into the case. Our philosophy was simple: if we allow the defendants a moment to catch their breath, they will treat the case as less of a priority. So, from the very beginning until the the case was resolved, we made sure that no time passed from one milestone to the next. Eventually, the defendants relented and the case was resolved on the courthouse steps. From start to finish, a case that ordinarily would take most firms years to litigated, was resolved in 13 months, due entirely to our attorneys’ diligence. Attorney’s fees: 3,000,000 Expenses: 320,000
Our attorneys were hired to pursue a wrongful death truck accident case following a fatal wreck in West Texas. This case was certainly important to our firm, the same as any other wrongful death case, but it took on a new level of significance because of the horrific injustice that almost occurred thanks to a botched police investigation. As we ultimately learned from analyzing the physical evidence and from talking to numerous witnesses who all told the same story, the accident occurred as a large oilfield truck entered I-20, immediately cutting across multiple lanes and into the “fast lane,” wherein this truck forced a small passenger car off of the roadway and into oncoming traffic, causing a fatal head-on collision. As if that was not bad enough, the truck driver then fled the scene. However, the police report told a completely different (and utterly inaccurate) story. Essentially, the police made it sound like the deceased passenger car driver (our clients’ father) just arbitrarily left the roadway and crashed into the other vehicle, killing himself in the process. The family thought that did not sound right, and they brought us into the case soon after the accident, which proved to be one of the most important decisions they ever made. Since we were able to conduct a thorough investigation while the evidence was still available, we were able to identify that the police figured the accident all wrong. Our research soon led us to eye witnesses to the accident. Said witnesses, an entire family sharing a minivan, all saw the same thing. They explained how the driver of the commercial vehicle ran the other car off the road and then fled, but they also explained how they pursued the commercial truck driver and took down his license plate information. Once the driver realized they were following them, he tried to run them too off the road. These witnesses then helped us identify other witnesses who were at the scene, and as more and more good Samaritans came forward, we were able to completely dispel the “official” version of what happened in the accident. Nevertheless, since the police report ultimately showed an inaccurate fact pattern, the defendants were emboldened, and they denied liability in the case for many months. Eventually, we uncovered evidence that showed that the truck driver A) had worked nearly 80 hours in five days, B) was likely on drugs at the time of the accident, C) had attempted to tamper with witness testimony, and D) that he likely conspired with his employer to cover his tracks. Once we got this evidence under the spotlight, the defendants accepted responsibility, and the case was resolved soon thereafter. Attorney’s fees: 2,180,000 Expenses: 100,000
In this case, we represented the family of a middle-aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent. Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation.
Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused by a failed component in the defendant’s vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation. Attorney’s fees: 1,280,000 Expenses: 50,000
Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man’s death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene. Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances surrounding the wreck, since the family felt that the police report did not make clear precisely what occurred.
We launched a full investigation and immediately deposed the investigating officers. Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant’s mounted an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger whom they alleged grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver’s best efforts. We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly showed that the truck gradually moved across the roadway and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy, and, frankly, we were a little surprised that a defendant would make such an absurd claim.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to the tire manufacturer or installer. The problem we faced was that the salvage yard who towed the truck destroyed the wreckage before we were hired in the case. If the truck still existed, it would have been easy for us to examine the tires and make a conclusive determination. But since the truck no longer existed, this provided the defendants with a perfect scapegoat defense. However, through deposition testimony of the investigating officer, we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out, severely weakening their ability to argue this defense.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have done so inappropriately. This argument was more plausible than the others considering that the precise cause of the decedent’s death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person. Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards, and that, due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation. Attorney’s fees: 775,000 Expenses: 25,000
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor. Attorney’s fees: 132,000 Expenses: 25,000
An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client’s right of way. Attorney’s fees: 158,333 Expenses: 5,000
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff’s failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly, which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually a satisfactory resolution. Attorney’s fees: 210,000 Expenses: 5,000
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff’s employer and the general contractor. Attorney’s fees: 220,000 Expenses: 20,465
(policy limits) A young woman lost her life after a bar over-served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. The bar denied any wrongdoing and claimed that they could not tell that she was intoxicated. The evidence and medical science illustrated that they were not lying. Someone, a young person, no less, is not able to conceal such a high degree of intoxication. Suspecting that the bar was not being truthful, we filed suit and began litigating against them. Through discovery, our attorneys learned of all employees who were working on the night in question. Eventually, we found an employee who had moved on to another job, and was therefore not part of the litigation, meaning we were within our rights to talk to that person outside of the presence of the bar’s attorneys. When we interviewed her, she explained that the young woman was not only obviously intoxicated, but that she was so drunk that she needed assistance to get to her car. Once we found the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, we pressed forward with the case and the defendants eventually settled. Attorney’s fees: 220,000 Expenses: 25,000
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. Attorney’s fees: 175,000 Expenses: 1,084
Plaintiff suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when her car was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The defendants argued that the accident was unavoidable, thus denying liability. Suit was filed in response to the denial, and the case was satisfactorily resolved after a year of litigation. Attorney’s fees: 288,750 Expenses: 2,500
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man’s vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy (the type where the defendant’s own attorney’s fees and other claims eat away at the available funds to the accident’s major victims) and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant (blame someone else for the accident) since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash. Additionally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assassination on the decedent. Even though he had no fault in the accident at all, they intended to call into question his past.
Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant’s insurer in nearly a dozen other cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant’s insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle. Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier’s exposure under the Stowers Demand should the carrier fail to offer policy limits.
The defendant’s attorney adamantly persuaded them to litigate, however, our attorney’s threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney’s advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court. Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the clients would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal. Attorney’s fees: 333,300 Expenses: 0
(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. Attorney’s fees: 333,300 Expenses: 5,000
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no significant legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action. The case was resolved through litigation. Attorney’s fees: 333,300 Expenses: 50,000
(policy limits) Recovery for a child who suffered an in-utero brain injury as a result of a rollover car accident. Attorney’s fees: 379,500 Expenses: 20,000
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who was involved in a head-on collision, causing him to suffer a closed that resulted in the permanent loss of smell. 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 and the case was resolved through litigation. Attorney’s fees: 560,000 Expenses: 31,410
Plaintiff alleged that an insurance carrier unfairly denied a claim, resulting from a non-fatal fire in an airplane. Our attorneys satisfactorily resolved the claim without the need for litigation. Attorney’s fees: 5,000 Expenses: 0
(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.
The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant’ insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm’s history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.
A 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.
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underride 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at-risk youths.
The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign. This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent’s door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance.
Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation. The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent’s speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit.
In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party. Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant’s argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver’s view of approaching traffic. Several months of intense litigation were required before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation. Attorney’s fees: 419,200 Expenses: 9,800