Thomas J. Magee

Attorney in St. Louis, MO
Practice Description

Mr. Magee focuses his practice on trials involving complex litigation matters, including:
•Products liability
•Professional liability
•Commercial litigation
•General personal injury

Recognized by

Super Lawyers

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 Super Lawyers in St. Louis and top 100 Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers since 2008
Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyer since 2006
Personal Injury Defense

AV Preeminent attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell

Recipient of the Missouri Lawyers Weekly 2014 Missouri Lawyer Award for the most reported verdicts/judgments as a defense attorney

Jury Trials of Note

Gary Spiller v. First Student, Inc. Madison County, IL Cause No. 12-L-1223, October 2013. Plaintiff was employed by First Student as bus driver. During a union meeting, Plaintiff got into an altercation with another driver. Plaintiff filed suit claiming Defendant had knowledge of other driver's violent tendencies and failed to take any action to prevent attack on Plaintiff. Plaintiff asked for $600,000 in compensatory damages and $1.8 million in punitive damages. Jury found for defendant.

Patrick McCusker v. First Student, Inc. St. Louis City, Cause No. 1222-CC02366. September 2013.
Plaintiff was a truck driver involved in an accident with driver of school bus. Plaintiff had independent witness who supported his version of the accident. Plaintiff claimed $120,000 in medical bills due to three surgical fusions and had lost wage claim of $408,000. Jury found for defendant and assessed 100% fault to Plaintiff.

Walter Douglas v. St. Louis Cold Drawn, Inc. St. Louis County, Cause No. 11SL-CC01746, March 2013.
Plaintiff was at Defendant's Premises picking up a shipment of steel bars. As product was being loaded on his truck, the overhead crane fell from the ceiling. Plaintiff claims he was struck by crane. Plaintiff had subsequent fusion of cervical spine and made claim of permanent disability. Plaintiff asked for damages in excess of $1,000,000 in closing argument. Verdict for defendant.

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, a professional football player, 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.

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 2 1/2-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
Bucksaw Resort, LLC v. Mehrtens, 414 S.W. 3 rd 39 (Mo. App. 2013)
Guthrie v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 407 S. W. 3 rd 642 (Mo. App. 2013)
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)

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Products Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Commercial Litigation
  • General Personal Injury
  • Trucking
  • Automobile


Peer Rating


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



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
cum laude

University Attended

Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Class of 1982

Birth Information

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

Associations & Memberships

Bar/Professional Association Involvement
fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
The Missouri Bar
Illinois ... More

Representative Cases

Reported Cases; Bucksaw Resort, LLC v. Mehrtens, 414 S.W. 3rd 39 (Mo. App. 2013); Guthrie v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 407 S. W. 3rd 642 (Mo. App. 2013); 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 2... More

Contact Information




Send email to Thomas J. Magee

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


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.


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.