Arkansas Delivery Man Receives $900+ Settlement for Injuries
Oct. 16, 2016
Attorney Peter Goss of Wendt Goss law firm in Kansas City has reached a $905,000 settlement with an Arkansas-based manufacturing company on behalf of 75-year-old Gary McQuillan of Arkansas.
The man was seriously injured when a large object fell off a Insul-Bead Corp. delivery truck on Oct. 6, 2011, while delivering a dock floatation device. McQuillan was standing behind the truck when a float fell off and hit him on the head. He had a head laceration, fell to the ground and lost consciousness.dock-delivery-accident-dhattorneys
McQuillan was diagnosed with having a brain injury that requires long-term care in a nursing home.
“The problem was he had some symptoms of dementia prior to this, and since this incident, his short-term memory is almost completely gone,” Goss said. “Things like directions, getting to and from places, remembering where he put things, where his room is at the facility … he just can’t remember
McQuillan’s wife, who has Alzheimer’s, is also at the facility. McQuillan had been her full-time caregiver.
Goss argued that the incident was caused by Insul-Bead asking the customer ti help with unloading.
“This is a ‘mom and pop’ operation, and they have one delivery man that delivers [the dock floats] and always has the assistance of the customer to help unload these floats off the truck,” he said. “So that was my main argument, that you should not have a 70-some-odd old man anywhere close to helping you unload these things, and he didn’t really have a choice.”
floating-dock-settlement-dh-attorneysThe defense’s main argument, Goss said, was that the driver said he told McQuillan “not to stand behind the truck as he was backing it up but to stay away until it was … secured.” Goss said the defense’s argument had some merit.
Defense attorney Kevin Staten of The Laser Law firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, has not commented.
“I think they knew that the risk of a trial was the chance of me getting a significant verdict higher than the policy limit,” Goss said. “The risk of a trial was the same for us — we [could] get less than what they were offering or nothing at all if the jury found my client was 50 percent or more at fault.” Goss also said, “It made sense for my client to settle the case and … continue to get the care he needed, and it made sense for the defendant to settle the case and” avoid the risk of a trial.