The Fire Chief, who heard and felt the explosion from his home one mile from the accident site, immediately traveled to the scene to investigate. A leak was detected from a valve on the propane cylinder. Ultimately, the Fire Marshall concluded the explosion occurred as a result of the leaking valve.

Brandon Swartz of the Swartz Culleton law firm filed suit on behalf of the injured worker against the gas cylinder manufacturer and several component makers, alleging that gas leaking from the valve had accumulated in the storage container, creating the conditions for an explosion. However, during testing, flow meter measurements of gas leaking from the valve called into question the role played by the valve in the explosion. The defendants’ experts placed the gas cylinder inside a sealed chamber and measured the propane leak with an electrical flow meter. The results showed that the amount of propane leaking from the cylinder was too small to have filled the work container with a propane concentration of 2.1%, which is the minimum concentration required for combustion. The defendants argued that the Fire Marshall had rushed to judgment and had overlooked other possible causes for the explosion, such as acetylene welding equipment that was also stored in the container.

Faced with the defense’s compelling calculations, Brandon Swartz and his expert went back to the drawing board. While the defense’s rationale made sense, Swartz was convinced of a flaw in their theory because the possibility that the valve leak was a mere coincidence was just too unlikely. He recalled that prior to the flow meter test, soapy water had been placed on the valve to locate the leak. The escaping gas created a ½ to ¾ inch bubble every second. Using that fact, he calculated that the propane was leaking at a rate of .3 cubic feet per hour, a much higher rate than had been measured using the flow meter. Additionally, because the accident had occurred following a three day holiday weekend, the gas had been leaking into the container for three days before the accident, and not two days as assumed by the defense. Using this new data, the plaintiff’s expert calculated that at the time of the explosion, the concentration of propane from the valve leak was 2.1%, enough to create the blast. Soon after receiving the plaintiff’s report, the gas cylinder manufacturer and other defendants agreed to settle.

A hotly contested fight early in the litigation concerned the defendant driver’s efforts to have the case transferred to Montgomery County from Philadelphia, where the plaintiff’s lawyers, Swartz Culleton, had filed suit. In an effort to have the case moved to a more defendant friendly court, the defense lawyers argued that there was no Philadelphia connection because the accident happened in Warminster, Montgomery County and both the plaintiff and defendant lived and worked in Montgomery County. Swartz Culleton attorney Chris Culleton was successful in keeping the case in Philadelphia through evidence from private investigators that the defendant driver’s employer sold auto parts to Philadelphia repair shops.

As the case approached trial, Swartz Culleton assembled a barrage of reports from vocational, rehabilitation, actuary economic and medical experts that placed dollar values on the plaintiff’s financial loss and future care costs. Attempts at settlement by a private mediator in October 2011 failed after the plaintiff’s team rejected what the defendants claimed was their final offer. Weeks later, however, and with trial looming, the defendant’s insurance carrier increased its offer and the case settled.

The employee was represented by Swartz Culleton attorney Brandon Swartz, who conducted a forensic accident investigation to determine if any company other than the employer was responsible for causing the accident. An engineering and design safety review concluded that the manufacturer of the catwalk had violated numerous engineering design principles by making the catwalk too narrow and without a hand rail. Swartz Culleton filed suit against the catwalk manufacturer in Philadelphia County. After deposition testimony, the manufacturer asked for early mediation. A key component of the settlement was the plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings. Although the injured worker was less than three years from retirement age, Brandon Swartz assembled a team of vocational and actuary economic experts to show that the employee had a significant future wage loss claim based on productivity increases and the value of fringe benefits and non-work activities. Brandon Swartz explained that, “just because an employee is close to the retirement age, the impact of a work-ending injury on the employee’s future earnings can still be substantial; it’s just more complicated than the usual simple math of multiplying the worker’s weekly wages by the number of weeks until retirement.” “Many retirees return to the workplace in a different capacity or perform other services for dependants,” said Swartz. “The key is to quantify the economic value of those services and activities.” Following mediation, the case settled for $525,000.

Bed sores, also called pressure sores or decubitus ulcers, are caused by poor hydration and nutrition and the lack of pressure relief measures such as frequent turning and use of special beds and cushions. Unrelieved pressure can cause skin breakdown and necrotic tissue. Common sites for bedsores are the buttocks, sacrum and heels. The severity of a bedsore is classified by Stages from I to IV, with IV being the worst. Bedsores are painful, debilitating and disfiguring. In general, bedsores should not happen.

July 11, 2011

When Thomas Timko made an obscene hand gesture to a driver who irked him, he may not have predicted the disastrous chain of events he set in motion — but his daughter believes he could and should have, and she’s suing him to prove it.

Driving home in October 2008 after taking his daughter Kaitlyn, now 11, for a day of shopping and swimming, Timko became angry when another driver cut him off on the Walt Whitman Bridge near Philadelphia, and flipped the guy the finger.

Unfortunately for Timko, he picked the wrong driver to tick off. Christian Squillaciotti, a schizophrenic former Marine with a gun, responded by firing four times into Timko’s car, striking him in the head.

Miraculously, not only did Timko survive the shooting and manage to stop the car, but Kaitlyn in the back seat was unharmed by the bullets or shattered glass.

For both father and daughter, however, the incident has had a crippling aftermath. Timko suffered permanent brain damage and struggles with a disfiguring scar and soaring medical debts. As for Kaitlyn, her mother Lori Hardwerk, says she’s never psychologically recovered.

Now Kaitlyn, through Hardwerk, is suing her father for compensation, saying his road rage not only provoked his own shooting, but left her with lasting emotional scars.

According to Hardwerk, who never married Timko though they were together for 20 years before they broke up in 2009, Kaitlyn has displayed signs of severe trauma since the shooting occurred.

“Prior to the incident, Kaitlyn was very outgoing and energetic — a normal little girl,” Hardwerk said. “Afterwards, she went into a shell. In addition to being extremely shy and introverted, Kaitlyn became afraid of being away from me and is very nervous when she is out of my sight.”

Hardwerk arranged for Kaitlyn to have weekly therapy visits that were set up by a crime victims’ program, but she says they haven’t resolved Kaitlyn’s issues and nearly three years after the shooting her daughter still displays signs of emotional damage.

“Kaitlyn remains afraid of anything that she cannot control, as well as loud noises, such as fireworks, thunder, motorcycles, etc,” says Hardwerk.

According to child psychologist Dr David Fassler, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, this horrific experience contained a perfect storm of factors that lead to Kaitlyn’s lasting trauma.

“Direct exposure to violent and confusing events involving people you know will typically have a more significant and lasting effect than a distant event involving strangers or acquaintances,” he said.

“Kids also tend to react more to incidents which threaten the stability and predictability of their lives and immediate families,” he says. “Kids who’ve had such experiences often require comprehensive and ongoing treatment to help them cope and go on with their lives.”

But it’s exactly this type of treatment that Hardwerk, who has not worked since a 2001 car accident left her disabled, says she cannot afford, and the initial insurance payout didn’t cover.

Kaitlyn’s attorney, Christopher Culleton of law firm Swartz Culleton PC, said Timko exacerbated a potentially deadly situation and deserves be held accountable.

“He cannot provoke other drivers, especially when he has his kid in the car,” Culleton said. “Mr. Timko gave him the finger, through the sunroof. That escalated the situation.”

But Timko’s attorney Kevin McNulty says it’s a case of misdirected anger.

“In no way was Mr. Squillaciotti’s act of shooting another driver a normal consequence of driving into the lane of travel of another vehicle,” McNulty wrote in a motion to dismiss the case. “Mr. Squillaciotti is the proximate cause of her alleged emotional distress, not her own father.”

McNulty also argued that the alleged harm to the plaintiff is so remote from the actions of the defendant, that the defendant cannot be found legally responsible.

A judge in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court denied the motion and the case has now moved to discovery, but is not expected to go to trial for more than a year.

Even more surprising, perhaps, than the decision to sue her own father, Kaitlyn’s suit doesn’t name his shooter, Christian Squilliacotti. While he may seem the most obvious target for a lawsuit, Squillaciotti — who was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and weapons charges and is currently serving a 13- to 26-year jail term — has no assets, and his insurance would actually not apply because the shooting was intentional. The former Marine has also been diagnosed wtih schizophrenia.

The suit does name his wife and passenger, Chastity Squillaciotti. as a defendant, climing that she bears some responsibility because she knew about her husband’s mental health issues, but neglected to prevent him getting behind the wheel while aggravated.

“Clearly she knows her husband’s got problems, and she’s sitting in the car while he’s driving,” Culleton said. “We need to explore whether she should have done something, whether she could have done something.”

Christian Squillaciotti told police that following Timko’s hand gesture, he heard voices urging him to kill the man, saying, “Kill him, kill that motherf—–,” just seconds before he opened fire into the car.

Police said they found numerous weapons at Squillaciotti’s home; but that Squillaciotti did have a gun permit. Culleton said the family hasn’t ruled out a law suit against whoever was responsible for granting Squillaciotti’s permit, but the investigation into those circumstances is still ongoing.

“We are still in the early stages of discovery and have not yet learned the exact circumstances of how the shooter obtained the permit or whether the permit was even valid at the time of the shooting,” he said.

The Philadelphia Police Department, which handled the Squillaciotti case, has not yet commented on the status of that investigation.

In the meantime, Kaitlyn will press forward with what may at first seem the unprecedented step of suing her own father, a man who was critically injured by the incident in question.

But children suing parents for a trauma they believe the parent caused isn’t as rare as you might think. Not only does it happen, but the parents are sometimes to a certain extent complicit, despite being defendants in the suit.

In 2007, Teddy Harrison of Anoka County, Minn., successfully sued his parents over a car crash in 2001 that left him permanently disabled. Harrison’s parents were willing defendants, as their attorney Robert King explained to The Associated Press at the time.

“This suit is about forcing the parents’ insurance company to live up to its responsibility,” King told the AP.

As a result of the suit, the Harrisons’ auto insurance company was forced to pay Teddy $100,000, money that contributed to his ongoing care.

While Timko, as both victim of an out of control road rage incident, and Kaitlyn’s father, might seem like an unlikely defendant because he has no assets, this suit, like the Harrisons’, will target his insurance on the basis of negligent driving.

“Kaitlyn continues to have an active relationship with her father and they still have visits with each other,” Hardwerk said.

The suit doesn’t accuse Timko of routine reckless behavior or general bad parenting, and it’s likely Timko is aware this may be his daughter’s only way of supporting her ongoing psychological care.

Culleton offered some insight into the possibility that what may seem like a situation fraught with vitriol, may in fact not be.

“Regardless of familial relationship, there is no impediment to bringing a claim against an offending family member,” he said. “It does not imply or require hard feelings.”

It’s certainly the case that Timko’s initial insurance was not sufficient for this particular eventuality. Many people only carry the minimal auto insurance, which in Pennsylvania would pay out a mere $5,000 towards medical expenses.

Sayde Ladov, past chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association and partner in the law firm of Dolchin, Slotkin and Todd said the case shines a light on the imperfect nature of the insurance system.

Most motor vehicle policies exclude coverage for intentional acts, such as Squillaciotti firing a gun into the car. Some policies include “uninsured motorists coverage,” in which case you have to proceed against your own carrier to gain benefits.

Most drivers don’t carry the most comprehensive insurance, which might cover such eventualities, because they’re more expensive. Even with the most expensive policies, there are usually several exclusions.

“Insurance can only insure against what is a forseeable risk,” Ladov said. “And if the risk is not forseeable and the gentleman who is the shooter has no assets and the insurance policy on her dad’s vehicle doesn’t cover it, Kaitlyn’s out of luck.”

Kaitlyn and her father have handled the situation by simply not discussing the case, Hardwerk said, but Fassler cautioned that if the suit does create further friction between Kaitlyn’s parents there’s a danger it may still be counterproductive for Kaitlyn herself.

“Ongoing conflict between parents, with or without legal involvement, puts kids at increased risk of emotional and behavioral problems, Fassler said. “In general, the sooner things get resolved, the better, for everyone involved.”

A Philadelphia jury awarded $1.5 million earlier this month to a former Mercy Hospital of Philadelphia employee who said he suffered spinal injuries after hitting a cement pillar in his employer’s parking garage.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Patricia A. McInerney presided over the four-day trial, which resulted in the jury awarding $1.5 million in damages March 10. The jury found Mercy Hospital negligent and did not find the plaintiff in Mapp v. Mercy Hospital of Philadelphia negligent, according to the verdict sheet.

Antywn Mapp, now 31, was working as a mental health technician at Mercy Hospital when he arrived at the hospital’s parking garage on the morning of Feb. 27, 2008, according to the plaintiff’s pretrial memorandum. He drove up to the roof because no spaces were available at the lower levels. Mapp alleged that, as he began turning into a parking spot, his vehicle slid on ice that had not been cleared, he applied his vehicle’s brakes, but the vehicle continued to slide until he hit a cement pillar.

Because of the collision, Mapp sustained injuries to his lumbar and cervical spine, the plaintiff’s memorandum said. Mapp tried to work in a light-duty capacity at his mental health technician job in which he would sometimes have to restrain patients during violent episodes. But low back and neck pain meant that Mapp had to leave a job that paid him $50,000 a year in favor of a job as a residential counselor that pays him $25,000 a year, the plaintiff argued.

Plaintiff’s counsel Todd M. Felzer, of Swartz Culleton in Newtown, Pa., said the biggest aspect of the damages award was the fact that Mapp’s career as a mental health technician was ended after the accident.

There was no dispute that the accident occurred, but there was a dispute over whether the hospital was negligent or not, Felzer said.

“Their defense was, number one, they contended that there was no defect, there was no ice on the roof,” Felzer said. “Number two that the hospital wasn’t on notice even if there was a defect.”

“It is defendant’s position that plaintiff’s accident was the result of his own negligence and the injuries are not the result of any negligence on the part of defendant,” the defendant’s amended pretrial conference memorandum said.

The plaintiff argued that the hospital failed to inspect the parking garage roof for ice and snow and to treat the ice and snow, according to the plaintiff’s memorandum.

“By failing to anticipate melting, water run-off and re-icing of the parking surface, and to treat same, defendants were negligent and proximately caused the serious injuries sustained by plaintiff,” the plaintiff’s pretrial memorandum said.

Defense counsel Frank A. Gerolamo, of Gerolamo McNulty Divis & Lewbart in Philadelphia, said that both liability and damages were disputed in the case and “it was a credibility issue on whether or not there was ice on the parking lot.”

Regarding Mapp’s damages, the defense contended that he had a lot of pre-existing herniated discs, Gerolamo said.

Gerolamo also said that Felzer did a nice job with the case.

The plaintiff’s medical expert was Dr. Roy Lerman, a pain specialist with Main Line Spine in King of Prussia, Bala Cynwyd, and West Chester, Pa, and the plaintiff’s vocational expert was Rosalyn Pierce, of RP Vocational Rehabilitation in Philadelphia, Felzer said.

The defense experts included orthopedic surgeon Dr. Neil Kahanovitz in West Orange, N.J., and radiologist Dr. Nancy Major of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Felzer said.

While liability and damages were equally contested, neither side presented liability experts, Felzer said.

There was no high-low agreement and no offers extended to settle the case, Felzer said.

There was a stipulation that the hospital owned and controlled the parking garage, which is attached to the hospital, Felzer said.

Pennsylvania workers’ compensation did not apply because Mapp was not in the course and scope of his employment, the plaintiff’s memorandum said.

The defendants have filed post-trial motions, which are still pending, according to the docket.

Defense co-counsel was Christina J. Kubiak of Gerolamo McNulty.

Brandon Swartz filed a lawsuit shortly following the accident. Because this elderly woman’s injuries were so debilitating, Swartz sued not only the faulty driver, but also a private healthcare insurance company for medical coverage. “This avoidable accident caused this active woman to go through three months of unnecessary anguish and distress,” says Swartz.

A settlement of $275,000 was obtained for the injured woman and Swartz fought for all medical expenses to be proportionally covered by the faulty driver’s motor vehicle coverage, with the remainder paid through a private healthcare provider. A few months following the accident, the woman was able to make a full recovery.

“Construction sites can be extremely hazardous environments, and the lack of proper protocol by management can be a serious violation of the law and social responsibility,” said Brandon Swartz, the prosecuting attorney.  As a result of the accident, the driver’s ankle injury required surgery.

The demolition contractor agreed to settle for $310,000 and payment of the medical coverage. A trial date is set for the general contractor.

Facing the loss of her husband’s support for her two young children, Pam turned to the lawyers of Swartz Culleton.  Prosecuting attorney Brandon Swartz filed suit against the young woman whose conduct had caused the tractor trailer to be where it was, and the truck driver for failing to ignite warning flairs after the first accident. As litigation proceeded, two seemingly insurmountable defenses emerged. The truck’s black box recordings revealed the truck driver had insufficient time to have placed flares or cones. More dauntingly, the defendants reconstructed the accident scene and filmed what the tractor trailer would have looked like that morning to oncoming drivers. Video taken from a car as it approached the intersection during the reconstruction raised the serious question of why Joe had not seen the truck in time to stop. Relying on this video, the defendants argued that Pam and her family had no case because Joe had been speeding or driving carelessly, and was most at fault for the second accident.

Undeterred, attorney Brandon Swartz launched an investigation of the intersection lighting and the truck’s reflectivity. The intersection was dark, had no street lights and the lights on the tractor trailer had been disabled by the first accident. He hired an expert on the reflective tape used on the tractor trailer. After reviewing the placement of the vehicles at the accident scene, this expert concluded that given the angle at which the truck was stopped, the reflection of Joe’s headlights would have been deflected to the side and not back at Joe. Without adequate light, Joe’s reaction time decreased dramatically. By providing a reasonable explanation for why Joe had not seen the truck in time to avoid it, this investigation helped absolve Joe of blame, and compelled the defendants to settle.

Following protracted negotiations, a settlement of $800,000 was reached.

A settlement of $230,000, plus medical costs, was obtained after Brandon Swartz filed a suit against the wrongful driver.

“This attractive lady went through emergency face surgery and was left with facial scars as a result of the other driver’s negligence,” states Swartz. Subsequent medical procedures have been a success and the young lady has made a strong recovery.

After collecting benefits for several years from worker’s compensation, the employer’s carrier challenged the man’s disability, contending he could return to employment. His lawyers, Swartz Culleton, hired a medical specialist who established that the injury was too severe for a return to work. After litigation, the case settled for $195,000, plus payment of full medical expenses and benefits.

Swartz Culleton sued the nursing home for malpractice.

According to prosecuting attorney Chris Culleton, “The nursing home failed to follow medical procedure and provide adequate treatment for this ailing individual. Specifically, the nursing home had discontinued using a wound treatment device called a wound vacuum.” Medical experts hired by Swartz Culleton provided opinions that the wound vacuum treatment would have increased the chance that the wound would have healed. The experts also criticized the facility’s decision to send the resident home, although by that point his fate was essentially sealed.

The patient died of unrelated causes, and the suit was continued by his family and Swartz Culleton. A settlement of $375,000 was obtained for the man’s estate.

Swartz Culleton was hired to prosecute a product liability claim against the window maker. The window, however, was over 20 years old, had been installed by a company no longer in business, and contained no markings that identified the manufacturer. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Christopher Culleton, retained a window expert who, after inspecting the window, was able to narrow the suspect list to five window manufacturers and two component makers. Culleton then filed a lawsuit against all the suspects. After obtaining documentation and testimony from the defen-dants, the cause of the malfunction was isolated to a defect in the balance casing, which had been made by a Massachusetts company.

“We showed that even though the window was 20 years old, the balance mechanism was supposed to survive the number of operations that would have occurred over that period and unfortunately it had not, and was therefore defective,” said Culleton.

The case was cracked during a deposition of a representative of the Massachusetts company. Under cross examination, the representative agreed that his company made the balance and that the failure of the balance had caused the window’s sudden fall. The case settled soon after for $200,000 dollars and compensation for all medical expenses. Fortunately, the former government employee was able to make virtually a full recovery from her injury.

The law suit was brought by law firm of Swartz Culleton, which contended that the E coli, a food borne bacterium, came from fast food that the woman had eaten at the restaurant chain two weeks earlier.

The law suit hit an early road block when genetic testing showed that the strain of E. coli found in the woman did not match the strain of E. coli that had affected other customers of the same restaurant chain.  A further hurdle was the fact that the woman did not become sick until two weeks after eating the chain’s food. The incubation period for E. coli is usually 2 to 3 days.

The Swartz Culleton lawyers were able to overcome these defenses using a detailed survey of everything the woman had eaten in the weeks before she was sick, and evidence that the fast food chain was the only place at which she ate where other diners had also reported E. coli symptoms.

The woman made a full recovery and later gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

A Pennsylvania construction company has agreed to pay $800,000.00 to a union employee to settle a lawsuit filed by the Swartz Culleton law firm.  The employee had sustained lower back injuries after he fell down a flight of stairs during a high-rise construction project.  The lawsuit alleged that the stairs were unsafe because the construction company, which was the general contractor on the large construction project, did not maintain bilateral hand-rails during the construction phase, and that the stairs were overly congested due to improper coordination of contractors at the site.

In defending the case, the company argued that OSHA did not require bilateral hand-railings and, more importantly, that it was immune from civil suit because of the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act.  Under the Act, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor and that subcontractor employs a worker, that worker cannot sue his employer or the general contractor if he sustains a work injury on the job site.  This is something called the statutory employer defense and is an absolute defense.  In this case, the plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor of the defendant company.

The worker’s attorney, Brandon Swartz of the Swartz Culleton law firm, explained how the statutory employer defense was overcome: “Using the project contracts and through a forensic investigation of the different contractors’ actual relationships, we were able to show that the contract between the general contractor and the worker’s employer, the subcontractor, was essentially a “sham” designed to create the shield of the statutory employer defense.  By putting the legitimacy of that contract in play, the defendant company lost its absolute defense, was forced to the negotiating table, and the case settled.”

The plaintiff was represented by Christopher Culleton of the Swartz Culleton law firm.  The law suit settled following a two year investigation of the mixer design process and extensive litigation on the identity and responsible of the original product manufacturer’s successor-in-interest.

“The difficulty with the case,” according to Mr. Culleton, “was not proving that the machine lacked the necessary safety features; rather, the problem was that the company that made and sold the mixer had filed for bankruptcy in the late 1990s and no longer existed.”  Through researching US and German corporate and legal filings, the plaintiff’s lawyers were able to identify a German company that had purchased from a bankruptcy trustee some of the mixer manufacturer’s original production equipment, customer lists and intellectual property.  “We started suit against that company and served process in Germany using the Hague Convention,” said Culleton.

The case resolved following testimony by representatives of the German company concerning the assets it had acquired.  Under Pennsylvania law, a company may be considered responsible for the products made by a previously existing company if it acquires its assets and uses them to “continue the product line.”  The plaintiff’s lawyers solicited testimony that the German company employed its acquired assets to mke baking equipment similar to the mixer involved in the plaintiff’s accident.  It also used the brands of its predecessor.  In advertising in Germany, the company had boasted that its equipment continued the long history and traditions and high standards of its predecessor.  The case settled for $150,000.

The family’s lawyer, Christopher J. Culleton of the Swartz Culleton law firm, explained that the settlement was compensation for two months of pain and suffering only as the family had not pursued a wrongful death claim; the bedsores, which resolved after appropriate treatment was provided at a new nursing facility, had played no role in the victim’s eventual death.  “The key to the case,” said Mr. Culleton, “was to show that the victim’s pressure sores were not inevitable.  Nurses at another facilities testified in depositions that the victim’s bedsores began to heal with appropriate care.”

Relying on records showing that the victim received no pain medication, the defendant nursing home contended that the victim, who was non-responsive due to his stroke, was unable to feel pain. “Relying on the same records and witness observations of the patient’s response to external stimuli,” explained Culleton, “we were able to obtain expert geriatric care specialist opinion that the patient could feel and did feel tremendous pain.  In that respect, we turned the lack of pain medication from the nursing home’s shield to our sword.”

According to the plaintiff’s lawyer, “A patient who is terminal and has poor quality of life is still entitled to quality medical care.  With limited exception, bed sores just shouldn’t happen and the legal system will not turn a blind eye when our loved ones are caused to spend their final days in avoidable suffering due to nursing home neglect.”

A Pennsylvania pedestrian who was catastrophically injured when struck by a drunk driver has settled his claim against the Tavern where the drunk driver had been previously drinking. The claim was brought under the Pennsylvania “Dram Shop” Statute, which prohibits bars from serving alcohol to any patron who is visibly intoxicated. The case settled for one million dollars, which was the full amount of the Tavern’s Dram Shop insurance coverage.

The bar’s main defense was that its staff did not know that the driver was drunk when they served him alcohol. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Brandon Swartz of the Swartz Culleton firm, explained that “a Dram Shop claim is difficult to prove because the Statute requires the victim prove that the tavern had actual knowledge it served its patron to the point of intoxication.” Early in the litigation, the investigating police officer testified that immediately after the accident, the driver acted like he was intoxicated. Attorney Swartz argued that the officer’s testimony was sufficient circumstantial evidence that the driver must also have been obviously drunk when he was at the Tavern. “Whether this evidence was enough,” said Swartz, “caused us some concern, so we kept digging.” According to Swartz, “the plaintiff caught a break in the case when we found a new witness, a co-worker of the driver, who admitted that on a prior occasion, he and the driver had visited the same Tavern, and the Tavern had served both men well past the point of intoxication.” Shortly after this co-worker testified, the insurance company agreed to pay the full amount of the policy.