CHAT LIVE NOW

$3.34 Million Arbitration Award

An employer who retains control over the security and safety of the workplace has a duty to use ordinary care to protect employees from criminal acts of third parties if it knows or has reason to know of unreasonable risk and foreseeable risk of harm to the employee.

Our firm makes it our mission to make sure justice is served by holding guilty parties accountable. When our attorneys Mark Fassold and Bailey VanNatta were given the opportunity to help a client who was killed by her ex-boyfriend, they worked endlessly to ensure that justice would be delivered.

Our client was being threatened by her abusive ex-boyfriend. She changed her residence, her car, her routines – everything except her workplace to hide from her abusive ex-boyfriend. She asked her employer for permission to change the store she worked at to any one of at least 47 other stores, but the employer did not approve her request.

Despite admitting to foreseeing the risk of harm, a violent act, and an assault on our client by her ex-boyfriend at her place of employment, her employer denied the request to move her and promised to keep her safe.

Our client relied on her employer’s promise to keep her safe. However, in the end, the employer admitted to doing absolutely nothing to keep her safe. Our client’s ex-boyfriend found her at the only place he knew to find her – her place of employment — and killed her.

Mark, Bailey, along with their team tirelessly worked on this case to obtain justice for $3.34 million for our client. Through all of the controversy that surrounded the case, the team was able to obtain an arbitration award for the surviving family. Although it can never replace the person who was lost, we are proud of our team for not letting an employer’s poor actions go unpunished. Keep fighting the good fight, team!

If you need an attorney, contact us!

Be sure to follow us on Instagram and Facebook to see more Guerra LLP news!

The Economic Loss Rule

Picture this: You just purchased a brand-new toaster oven. It did not come with a warranty, but you have heard great things about this brand and know several people who own the same model, so you trust it will work just fine. The toaster oven works great for a while, but one day, it explodes. The toaster did not hurt anyone or damage anything else, but you spent a lot of money on it! However, you probably cannot sue the manufacturer. Why?

Continue reading “The Economic Loss Rule”

The Interplay Between Mass Tort and Class Action Litigation at Settlement

Mass torts and class actions have many similarities, so it can be easy to get the two confused. The main difference between mass torts and class actions is how individuals are joined in the two types of litigation. In mass torts, legal counsel sign-up individuals who have been injured or have sustained damages from the same event or occurrence. In comparison, class actions have a class representative that legal counsel represents on behalf of a class of people injured from the same event or occurrence.

Continue reading “The Interplay Between Mass Tort and Class Action Litigation at Settlement”

CHAT LIVE NOW
CALL US NOW