Recent Successes

Medical Malpractice

In a case tried by our senior partner Bob Lynch, a federal jury found in favor of our client in a medical malpractice case stemming from the 1996 death of an 11-month old. The doctor had been accused of negligence in his treatment of the infant for a viral infection, specifically in his arranging to have the child transported some 120 miles by the family car rather than by ambulance. The child's parents made accusations of racial discrimination in the treatment, due to the fact the child was of Native American heritage. As a result, our client was criminally prosecuted on murder charges in what is believed to be the first instance in California that a doctor was so charged in connection with treatment decisions. He was acquitted, but plaintiffs continued with their civil action. The lawsuit gained national notoriety when our client was interviewed on a network television broadcast. In legal circles, the case made headlines as a result of the judge's highly controversial ruling to permit discovery into the hospital's peer review process. The case took three weeks to try, but the jury needed only eight hours to agree unanimously that our client had acted properly, and that the years of attacks on his character were unmeritorious. (More about our medical malpractice expertise)

Employment Law & Litigation

The EEOC sued our Client in federal court alleging racial discrimination in hiring and job assignments of an African-American heavy equipment operator seeking an injunction against "future discrimination", damages and reinstatement of the operator. It then publicized its charges in local newspapers. The client came to Lynch Gilardi & Grummer for exoneration. The Client and its President had been leaders in promotion of job training and hiring of minorities in the construction trades, and vehemently denied mistreating of the former employee on whose behalf the EEOC sued. We immediately reviewed the hiring and assignment statistics from the job site and determined that the EEOC's "disparate treatment" claims were unsubstantiated. When a call to the EEOC lawyers failed to persuade them to reconsider their suit, we interviewed the job superintendent and other employees from the job site and determined that it was the operator's belligerence and incompetence that had caused his termination. We investigated the former employee's background and uncovered 20 years of allegations of discrimination and failed lawsuits against other companies. We also obtained records showing several prior psychiatric hospitalizations and instances of violent behavior, including evidence that 10 years previously, after losing a personal injury lawsuit, he had assaulted one of the jurors in the parking lot. Armed with this and other information, we again asked the EEOC lawyers to drop the case. When they learned of their client's assault on the juror, they asked for mediation. Soon after, they accepted $15,000, one of the lowest settlements to which the EEOC had ever agreed in a case of this nature. The Client obtained a concession from the EEOC that it had not discriminated and a written promise that the operator would never seek or accept employment from them again. (More about our employment law expertise)

General Liability

The employee of a window manufacturer sued our crane client alleging our crane operator negligently lifted a load, causing an injury to the employee. The window company refused to defend or indemnify the crane company, despite a contract for indemnity signed before the accident. We not only obtained a defense verdict on the employee's personal injury claim, but also prevailed on a cross-complaint against the window manufacturer so that the crane company was reimbursed in full for all attorney's fees, expert fees, and costs.

Construction Law & Liability

In a contractual arbitration, our firm obtained a $195,000 award for our client, an asphalt manufacturer, which had sold "rubberized" asphalt to a paving contractor for a public works project. The paving contractor had refused to pay our client, claiming that the asphalt was defective and that lack of production on the part of our client had caused the contractor damages in the form of increased job costs. The contractor attempted to calculate its "lost production" damages using the "total cost method." In pre- and post-arbitration briefs, our firm argued that the "total cost method" is a "disfavored" method to calculate loss of production since it fails to account for items such as the paving contractor's own bidding shortfalls and delays. Our firm ultimately proved that our client did not cause the paving contractor's loss of production. The award included our client's contract damages, interest and attoneys' fees. (More about our construction law expertise)

Construction Law & Liability / Products Liability

We represented the manufacturer of the "life safety" system installed in one of San Francisco's premier office buildings that was contaminated with PCBs during a fire. This case presented complex overlapping legal and factual issues pertaining to products liability, electrical engineering and health risks posed by the PCB contamination. The claims arising out of the PCB contamination approached $40-$50 million dollars. After 8 months of trial, the judge made preliminary rulings and findings of fact that resulted in the dismissal of our client. Not only did our client pay nothing, but one of the other potentially responsible parties reimbursed our client $1.5 million dollars in attorney's fees incurred in the litigation. (More about our construction law and products liability expertise)

Real Estate Law & Litigation

Our client was a San Francisco landlord who presented the sole set of tenants in his three-unit building with an owner move-in notice. After receiving this notice, the plaintiffs refused to leave the apartment for six months and ceased to pay rent. After moving out, they proceeded to sue for wrongful eviction in addition to asking for an award for damages. During the course of the two-week trial, it was found that the landlord did, in fact, violate a portion of the San Francisco rent ordinance, however the jury found no cause for damages. (More about our real estate law expertise)

Products Liability

A suit was brought against our client, a prominent power tools manufacturer, by a carpenter who had shot himself in the leg with one of their pneumatic nailers. The suit contended that the firing mechanism of the nailer was unsafe, causing the tool to inadvertantly discharge. At trial, we proved that the accident in question would have occurred even if the nailer had been manufactured in conformance with the plaintiff's proposed "safer alternative design." Further evidence was introduced that showed that the firing mechanism of the tool is the standard in the industry and that the plaintiff was not following safety instructions and standards set forth by both the manufacturer and by the construction industry. (More about our products liability expertise)

Recent Successes

General

Attorney