Thomas J. Magee LinkedIn

Attorney in St. Louis, MO

Recognized by: Super Lawyers

Practice Description:

Mr. Magee focuses his practice on trials involving complex litigation matters, including:

· Products liability

· Professional liability

· Commercial litigation

· General personal injury

· Trucking

· Automobile

Bar/Professional Association Involvement:

American College of Trial Lawyers (Fellow)

Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

The Missouri Bar

Illinois State Bar Association

Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers

American Bar Association, Litigation and Torts and Insurance Practice Section

International Association of Defense Counsel

American Board of Trial Advocates

Association of Ski Defense Attorneys

Awards, Honors, Distinctions:

The Best Lawyers in America since 2007

"Best Lawyers in St. Louis" by St. Louis Magazine since 2007

He has been named top 50 Missouri Kansas SuperLawyers in St. Louis and top 100 Missouri Kansas SuperLawyers since 2008

AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Missouri Super Lawyer since 2006

Published Legal Writing:

"Daubert Allows Judicial Control in Excluding Expert Testimony", Newsletter of TIPS Products, General Liability and Consumer Law Committee, Winter 1994.

"Sanctions Against a Foreign Party for Failure to Produce Discovery", presented at ABA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, August, 1994, later reprinted in The Brief, Winter 1996, Vol. 25, No. 2.

"1995 Annual Survey: Products, General Liability and Consumer Law", Tort & Insurance Law Journal. Contributing author.

"1996 Annual Survey: Products, General Liability and Consumer Law", Tort & Insurance Law Journal. Contributing author.

Legal Lectures:

Adjunct Professor of Law in Trial Advocacy, St. Louis University School of Law 2008 - 2011.

Speaker, St. Louis University Mini Law School, Voir Dire, April 2010.

Speaker, American College of Trial Lawyers Seminar, Winning with Experts, June 27, 2008.

Speaker, Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Bench and Bar Meeting, June 1, 2006.

Speaker, Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Bench and Bar Meeting, "Tort Reform", June 3, 2005.

Speaker, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law/Continuing Legal Education Program,

"Taking and Defending Depositions", October 22, 1993.

Speaker, ABA Annual Meeting, "Litigation Involving a Foreign Party", New Orleans, LA, August 8, 1994.

Speaker, ABA Annual Meeting, "Punitive Damages from a Jury's Perspective", August 7, 1995.

Trials

Missouri State Courts

St. Louis City

St. Louis County

St. Charles County

Boone County

Camden County

Cole County

Franklin County

Jefferson County

Iron County

Platte County

Warren County

Illinois State Courts

Clinton County

Madison County

St. Clair County

United States District Court

Eastern District of Missouri

Western District of Missouri

Recent Jury Trials of Note

Nottoway v. Salt River Construction Services, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 10SL -- CC02723, March 2010.

Counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff was the successor in liability to a company that was converting apartment buildings to condominiums. Defendant was the construction manager on the job. Due to a gap in the scope of work, portions of the roof were uncovered and a rain storm caused extensive damage to the units. Plaintiff claimed a loss in the fair market value of the units of approximately $1.5 million plus lost rent of approximately $300,000. Plaintiff settled with two of the subcontractors before trial for $289,000. Defendant admitted responsibility but claimed that Plaintiff was partly to blame due to failure to schedule contractors. Demand before trial was $1.8 million and defendant's offer was $300,000. Jury found as follows: Damages of $1,384,000 with 50% fault to plaintiff and 50% to defendant. After offset for prior settlements, the net verdict to the plaintiff was for $547,000.

Sarah Heimann v. Master Toys & Novelties, Inc., St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 2107CC-00180, March 2009.

Counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff brought this product liability case after she sustained a serious eye injury while using a Screaming Flingshot Monkey distributed by Defendant. The Monkey was a plush toy that could be catapulted by stretching its fronts legs which would shoot the monkey a distance causing a screaming sound. Plaintiff alleged as she was shooting the monkey, it ripped which caused it to recoil and hit her in the eye. Jury found in favor of the defendant.

Calvin Schneider v. Snow Creek, Inc., Platte County Circuit Court, Cause No. 05AE-CV02694, February 2009.

Counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff was a 12 year old boy who was skiing at Defendant's ski area with his father. As plaintiff was skiing down one of the more difficult slopes, plaintiff went off the trail and fell into a diversion ditch. Plaintiff eventually lost one of his kidneys due to trauma. Plaintiff alleged that the slope was improperly marked and defendant was negligent in not covering the diversion area with snow. Plaintiff presented evidence of substantial future medical concerns due to the loss of the kidney. Defendant claimed the area was well marked and the injury while unfortunate was due to the risks inherent in the sport of skiing. Jury found in favor of the defendant.

Zammit v. MidStates Club Hockey Association, St. Charles County Circuit Court, Cause No. 0611-CV2200, October 2008.

Counsel for Defendant. Plaintiffs were two high school boys who brought suit after being injured in an attack on them in a parking lot following a high school hockey game. Plaintiffs claimed Mid-States knew that an attack was likely due to tensions between the high schools and failed to provide adequate security. Jury found for defendant.

Rihn v. Jackson, Federal Court - Eastern District of Missouri, Cause No. 4:07CV00197 ERW, March, 2008.

Counsel for defendant. Plaintiff was a male flight attendant who brought suit against the defendant, a professional football player. Plaintiff claimed defendant assaulted him during a flight causing him permanent psychological problems. Plaintiff's wife also claimed she was damaged. Plaintiff and his wife demanded $1 million before suit was filed. Defendant admitted pushing plaintiff, but claimed it was reasonable force to prevent offensive contact from the plaintiff. Jury found in favor of plaintiff but awarded only $3000.

Thomas Coffee v. Charles Crane Agency, St. Louis City Circuit Court, Cause No. 052-1768, Nov. 2007

Counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff brought suit against his insurance broker. Plaintiff's coffee roaster caught fire and plaintiff claimed he should have had insurance that provided for a new roaster. Defendant's position was that roaster was only partially damaged and plaintiff got full recovery from the insurance carrier and had the best insurance available. Jury verdict for defendant.

Doe v. Watson, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 06CC-003388, Oct. 2007

Counsel for Defendant. Suit by college girl against former minister alleging psychological abuse and inappropriate physical touching while she was a member of a Lutheran Church. After 5 days of trial, jury unanimously found in favor of minister.

Zumwalt v. Laidlaw, St. Louis City Circuit Court, Cause No. 032-09703, Dec. 2005

This case was selected by Missouri Lawyers Weekly as the number one defense verdict of 2005. Counsel for defendant Laidlaw. Suit was brought by parents of badly injured 10 year old for injuries sustained after being dropped off by Laidlaw bus driver. Child was struck by codefendant while crossing the street. Claim against Laidlaw was that child was dropped off at wrong bus stop on wrong side of a busy street which forced him to cross the street. After codefendant settled with plaintiff for $2 million, trial proceeded against Laidlaw. Plaintiff had approximately $7 million in medical and future lost wages. Demand before trial was $17 million and plaintiff's attorney requested $24 million at trial. Jury returned a verdict for $7 million in damages but assessed 97% fault to plaintiff for net recovery to plaintiff of $150,000.00.

Interface Construction Co. v. Hazelwood Board of Education, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 02CC-000328, Nov. 2004

Counsel for plaintiff Interface. Suit against Hazelwood for failure to pay full amount of contract to build gymnasium for Hazelwood Central high school. Interface was general contractor on the job and sought $265,000.00. Hazelwood denied payment due to claim that work was defective and filed counterclaim for $200,000.00 for extra work and $500,000.00 for mold remediation. Jury found in favor of Interface on its claim for damages and in favor of Interface and against Hazelwood on its claim. Jury also found that Hazelwood acted in bad faith. Jury awarded full value of claim of $265,000.00. With additional finding of bad faith, Hazelwood paid $450,000.00 to settle claim. Interface paid nothing to Hazelwood.

Dunne vs. Faulk, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Cause No. 02CC-4777, May 2003

Co-counsel for defendant professional football player, Marshall Faulk, sued by former girlfriend claiming domestic abuse. Plaintiff's demand prior to trial was $3 million dollars. After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Marshall Faulk.

Meriweather vs. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., Federal Court - Eastern District of Missouri, Cause No. 4:01CV00588CAS, Feb. 2003

Counsel for defendant. Claim for wrongful death by parents of five-year old boy who was killed in a pedestrian -- school bus accident. Demand had been as high as $1.7 million dollars then reduced to $650,000.00 prior to trial. The jury found in favor of Defendant Laidlaw Transit, Inc. and plaintiff recovered nothing from defendant.

Uxa vs. Marconi, St. Louis City Circuit Court, Cause No. 002-00308, March 2002

Counsel for plaintiff. Suit against drunk driver and car seat manufacturer for injuries to 21/2-year old boy. Before trial Defendant Marconi, offered policy limits of $25,000.00 and Defendant Cosco made an offer of $500,000.00. Jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants for $10,640,000.00. Largest plaintiff's verdict in the St. Louis area in 2002. Jury decision was affirmed on appeal by Missouri Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals added an additional amount for prejudgment interest.

Reported Cases

Schneider v. Snow Creek, Inc, WD No. 71134 (Mo App 2011)

First Student, Inc. v. Coleman, 324 S.W. 2d 776 (Mo App 2010)

Adams v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 317 S.W. 2d 66 (Mo. App 2010)

Thornburgh Abatement v. J.W. Terrill, Inc., 294 S.W. 2d 141 (Mo. App 2009)

Wildhorse Summit Development Corp v. Assurance Co of America, 261 S.W. 2d 649 (Mo. App. 2008)

Reasonover v. St. Louis County , 447 F. 3d 569 (8th Cir. 2006)

Reliance Insurance Co. v. Chitwood, et al, 433 F 3d 660 (8th Cir. 2006)

Jacobsmeyer v. Charles L. Crane Agency, 101 S.W. 3d 585 (Mo. App. 2005)

Metal Exchange v. J.W. Terrill, Inc., 173 S.W. 2d 672 (Mo. App. 2005)

Toth v. Guarantee Electrical Construction Co., 148 S.W. 3d 873 (Mo. App. 2004)

Uxa v. Marconi, et al, 128 S.W. 3d 131 (Mo. App. 2003)

State ex. rel. USAA Casualty Co. v. David, 114 S.W. 3d 447 (Mo. App. 2003)

Bennett v. Hidden Valley, Inc., 318 F. 3d 868 (8th Cir. 2003)

State ex. rel. Vee-Jay Cement v. Neill, 89 S.W. 3d 470 (Mo. 2002)

Shervin v. Huntleigh Securities Co., 85 S.W. 2d 737 (Mo. App. 2002)

Ludwick v. Snow Creek, Inc., 37 S.W. 3d 418 (Mo. App 2001)

Loehr v. Walton, 242 F. 2d 834 (8th Cir. 2001)

McCarty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 14 S.W. 3d 148 (Mo. App. 2000)

Lewis v. Snow Creek, Inc., 6 S.W. 3d 388 (Mo. App. 1999)

Burns v. Solkey, 959 S.W. 2d 953 (Mo. App. 1998)

Wolfson v. Bernstein, 955 S.W. 2d 814 (Mo. App. 1997)

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Crane Co., 904 S.W. 2d (Mo. App. 1995)

Ashly v. R.D. Columbia, 54 F. 3d 498 (8th Cir. 1995)

Automobile Insurance Co. v. United H.R.B. General Contractors, Inc., 876 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. App. 1994)

Tucci v. Moore, 875 S.W.2d 115 (Mo. 1994)

McMurry v. Magnusson, 849 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. App. 1993)

Krame v. Waller, 849 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. App. 1993)

McMurtry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 845 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. 1993)

Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. App. 1991)

First Baptist v. Bybee, 789 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. App. 1990)

United States v. Baker, 855 F. 2d 1353 (8th Cir. 1988)

314-480-4212
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Products Liability
  • Insurance Coverages
  • Automobile
  • Professional Malpractice

 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1985, Missouri
1986, Illinois
1985, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
1987, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
1989, U.S. Supreme Court
1990, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
1991, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
2003, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Law School Attended

St. Louis University School of Law
Class of 1985
J.D.
cum laude

University Attended

Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Class of 1982
B.S.

Birth Information

Born in 1960
St. Louis, Missouri, December 19, 1960

Contact Information

Phone

314-480-4212

Email

Send email to Thomas J. Magee


Office Information
Thomas J. Magee
Partner
 211 North Broadway, Suite 2700,
St. Louis, MO 63102

Loading...

Logo
HeplerBroom LLC (St. Louis, Missouri)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.