Blumer Nally & Siro and Co-counsel Cherry & Givens Obtain Jury Verdict of $8,154,009 against Boom Truck Manufacturer In Products Liability Case

In March 1992, attorneys Jude Nally, Sam Cherry and Keith Givens obtained a verdict on behalf of plaintiff for injuries he sustained because the  bucket truck in which he was working was not properly insulated. Plaintiff suffered severe burns to both arms, resulting in the loss of his arms at the shoulder through amputation at age 45.

In July 1993, attorney Rik Siro obtained a verdict of behalf of plaintiff against the operators of the Woodlands Racetrack. Plaintiff was in a grandstand seat at the track when the seat unexpectedly collapsed, throwing plaintiff to the ground. As a result of the fall, plaintiff sustained permanent low back pain and disability.

In July 2000, attorneys Rik Siro and Heidi Moyer obtained a jury verdict on behalf of their client, whose arm was struck by defendant's car as he was walking across an unmarked, uncontrolled intersection. As a result of the crushing impact, Plaintiff developed symptoms of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) of the right arm. Throughout the trial the defendant driver denied that she struck plaintiff, and further argued that he did not have RSD or any other injury.

In November 1991, Rik Siro successfully negotiated the settlement of a wrongful death claim for the wife and young child of a man who died within 24 hours after the defendant physician failed to properly read a scan which indicated the probability of a pulmonary embolism.

On August 29, 2001, attorneys Rik Siro and Heidi Moyer obtained a $198,925 verdict on behalf of their client. Plaintiff was injured on a sidewalk in the Country Club Plaza, when she was struck in the left knee by a piece of wood thrown from a worker's power saw. Days after the incident Plaintiff began experiencing neurological symptoms, which included severe headaches, neck pain, and foot dragging, and months later she required and underwent neck surgery. Throughout discovery and trial defendant denied that the nerve injury and surgery were in any way caused or related to the sidewalk incident.

In January 2002, attorneys Heidi Moyer and Rik Siro obtained a jury verdict on behalf of their client for a fall she had in defendant's Leavenworth store. On a rainy day, Plaintiff fell inside the store in a puddle of water a significant distance from the store's entrance. In the fall she fractured her kneecap. Throughout trial Wal-Mart denied that plaintiff fell in any water, and argued she was 100% responsible for her fall and resulting injuries.

On October 31, 2000, attorneys Rik Siro and Heidi Moyer obtained a $300,000.00 verdict on behalf of plaintiff and his family for injuries he received when a Casino security guard struck him with a chair while moving it. At the time of the incident Plaintiff suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease and was not able to protect himself from the blow or break his fall to the ground. As a result, he suffered a head injury, post-traumatic positional vertigo and a worsening of his condition. Throughout the trial defendant denied that their guard was negligent and argued that the fall did not cause or contribute to any significant injury.

In July 1996, attorneys Jude Nally & Rik Siro obtained an $80,000.00 verdict on behalf of plaintiff for injuries she sustained in defendant's restaurant when she slipped and fell in water which had dripped onto the floor from a food bus cart. In the fall she sustained a painful fracture to her elbow.

In October 1997, attorney Rik Siro obtained a verdict for lost pay, and liquidated damages for his client, a longtime line supervisor, against his former employer Stuart Hall/Newell Rubbermaid, for illegal age discrimination. Plaintiff challenged his firing as part of a reduction-in-force with proof that younger, less experienced supervisors were treated more favorably than him in keeping their jobs.

On February 8, 1993, attorney Rik Siro obtained a $100,048 verdict on behalf of plaintiff for retaliatory discharge. The jury found that the employer retaliated against plaintiff for reporting its illegal rebate scheme to the FBI, and found the company's conduct to be in reckless or conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights. The case was tried under the Public Policy exception to Missouri's employment-at-will doctrine.