In the mid-1970s, Union Oil operated an oilfield just outside the city of Santa Maria. When that oilfield was abandoned, Union Oil did not clean out one of its waste sump pits as required by law at the time. Instead, it simply covered the pit with dirt and left it in the ground. Then it sold the field as “remediated” to land developers, who built homes across it. Kevin Wright bought one of those houses and lived there from 1985 to 1988. He didn’t know it had been built over a buried pit of oilfield waste, or that benzene was rising out of the ground into the air of his home. Twenty-seven years later, he was diagnosed with cancer.

After his diagnosis, one of his children drove past the old street and found the house gone. Union Oil had quietly purchased and demolished it after oil appeared in the backyard. The attorneys pulled old aerial photographs from Santa Barbara County's historical archive; a geologist took the soil borings from the site, where benzene still stained the ground at depth, and used them to fix the position of the forgotten pit. Then the team laid a 1973 aerial photograph over the modern street and parcel lines, and the buried sump fell on the footprint of Wright's home. The company's own protected and hidden paper trail helped find the poison beneath the house. Union Oil tried to spread the blame: to another oil company, to the developer, to the builders who put up the house, even to Wright's own family. A jury placed 100 percent of the fault on Union Oil, and the verdict resulted in further remediation of the real estate upon which other homes were built. Kevin Wright saw the verdict, but passed away before the case was finally over.

Bill Cheng, an active 80-year-old man, was on his daily morning walk to get coffee when he became the victim of a devastating crash. Dr. Mary Zi-Ping Luo was driving in the course and scope of her employment as co-founder of Amphastar Pharmaceuticals and International Medication Systems when she failed to stop at a red light, made an unsafe right turn, and collided with a truck that had the right-of-way. The impact caused Luo to lose control of her vehicle, which jumped the curb and struck Cheng on the sidewalk. Cheng underwent numerous surgeries and extensive medical treatment. Once an independent father and grandfather with an active lifestyle, Cheng was left unable to care for himself and now resides in a long-term rehabilitation facility receiving around-the-clock care. A persistent challenge in catastrophic injury cases involving older adults is the defense effort to diminish damages by focusing on a plaintiff's age.

The suggestion is that an elderly person's losses are less significant because they have fewer years remaining. Here, the jury unequivocally rejected that premise and awarded the largest compensatory damages verdict for someone 75 or older in California. Before the collision, Cheng was active and independent, maintained a daily walking routine, lived without assistance, and enjoyed time with his family. Following the crash, he was left with a severe traumatic brain injury, permanent cognitive deficits, significant physical impairments, and a need for round-the-clock care. The evidence demonstrated that the collision did not merely shorten Cheng's future – it fundamentally altered the quality of the life he had worked decades to build. The jury's substantial non-economic damages award recognizes that the loss of independence, mobility, dignity, and enjoyment of life carries profound value, regardless of age. The verdict reinforces an important legal principle: justice is not discounted because a victim is elderly.

In 1994, the infamous McDonald’s verdict flooded the newspapers and airwaves. The insurance defense industry controlled the narrative and spread false propaganda about the case leading Americans to believe that the case and all “hot coffee cases” are the classic example of frivolous lawsuits. Thirty years later, Michael Garcia a Postmates driver was picking up three Venti-sized teas at a Starbucks drive-through in Los Angeles. The barista negligently failed to secure a 180-degree temperature tea in the drink holder and did not properly secure the lid. Within two seconds of handing the drinks over, scalding hot 180-degree tea fell out of the drink holder into Garcia's lap, resulting in third-degree burns to his thighs and devastating mutilation injuries to his penis. From the beginning, Starbucks’s attitude towards the case was to stand tall and delay, defend, depose and deny any responsibility whatsoever while taking the position that nobody could win a “hot coffee case” in front of an American jury.

During the jury trial, after a jury verdict finding Starbucks 100% responsible for negligence, the mega-corporation offered a lifechanging amount of money to settle. Garcia refused to settle unless Starbucks promised to make safety changes to ensure that other customers would be protected. Starbucks refused and wanted to sweep the case under the rug. It took a lot of courage to say no to that offer. In the end, the jury delivered a verdict for a lot more than what Starbucks offered and the judge added a lot more to the verdict, finding that Starbucks frivolously denied liability and failed to pay a reasonable settlement offer. This jury verdict was heard not only across America but throughout the world, changing the narrative and legitimacy of "hot coffee cases,” and most importantly Starbucks changed its policy to do a better job protecting customers across the globe from being burned.

Esmeralda Gonzalez endured a year of threats and bullying by another high school student, the star of the school's softball team. School personnel knew about the bullying but took no action. After the bully appeared at her home one morning, Esmeralda and her mother, Maria Jimenez, went to the school to seek help. As soon as they arrived in the school parking lot, the bully and other minors attacked them. A campus security officer, a family friend of the bully, was present and failed to intervene. Jimenez suffered a traumatic brain injury, facial fractures requiring surgery, a retinal injury, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Gonzalez suffered physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Plaintiffs alleged that the New Haven Unified School District negligently failed to control escalating bullying, prevent foreseeable violence, and protect both its student and her mother. The district argued that the attack happened too quickly to prevent, it owed no duty of care to Jimenez, and that the plaintiffs should not have gotten out of the car. The jury rejected both defenses and found the district 100 percent responsible.

The case required more than five years of relentless litigation. The defense challenged the pleadings, sought summary judgment, filed dispositive motions in limine and post-trial motions, and pursued a full appeal. On the eve of trial, despite declining to depose plaintiffs' principal liability expert, the defense moved to exclude the expert. The court denied the motion. After the verdict, the parties completed post-trial mediations and full appellate briefing before settling on the eve of oral argument. The case sends a clear message that schools cannot ignore prolonged bullying, fail to protect students and parents who come to them for help, and then escape responsibility by denying a duty of care or claiming that the violence occurred too quickly to prevent.

Florencio Munguia was a hard-working immigrant performing physically taxing work. He was injured when an employee of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department turned the vehicle he was driving directly in front of Florencio, causing a collision. Florencio had no choice but to return to work right after the crash. In his words: “I have to work to support my family, even with the pain.” The evidence showed that the pain with which Florencio must now live turned his life upside down. He is no longer able to perform his physically demanding job pain-free, as he once did. He is no longer able to interact with his loved ones or even to play with his grandson. And he is no longer able to engage in the activities he loved, such as riding motorcycles and maintaining his home.

The County admitted liability (because it had to) but tried mightily to diminish Florencio’s injuries in the jury’s eyes. It landed on the theme that he must be making much of it up because of how soon he returned to work and because he did not aggressively seek the treatment warranted by his injuries or complain much. But the jury saw through this and recognized the true story: Florencio was a stoic man who kept working through the pain. It awarded compensation far in excess of what the County was willing to offer. The County appealed, attacking virtually all aspects of the verdict. In a thoughtful opinion, the Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One) affirmed, recognizing that an immigrant worker’s pain, dignity, access to excellent medical care, and loss of quality of life are not discounted because he is poor, because he speaks Spanish, because he treats on a lien, or because he keeps working to feed his family.