$175,000 settlement for a 10 year old child who sustained a severed flexor tendon when one of his middle fingers came into contact with a jagged edge of a defective washing machine. Our investigation revealed that the owner of the laundromat where the accident occurred knew that several of his washing machines were falling apart. Instead of paying $50 per machine to replace the broken parts, he attempted a makeshift fix using duct tape. When the tape ultimately peeled off, it left a very sharp edge that injured our client. The settlement was obtained within 1 year of the accident.

$75,000 settlement for a woman who sustained 2nd degree burns on her inner thighs and buttocks in a freak accident at an internationally known fast food chain. (A confidentiality agreement prevents the name from being revealed.)

Our client purchased a hot tea, and placed it on a table. As she attempted to sit down, her foot hit the base of the table. Unbeknownst to her, the base was broken, rendering the entire table wobbly. As a result, the scalding hot water was catapulted into her lap. While the burns looked gruesome for the first few months, they had almost completely healed by the time of the settlement.

Although this restaurant is known for fighting each case tooth and nail, the case was settled within 14 months of the accident. (This settlement took place during the Covid-19 crisis of 2020 when the court system was in a near complete shut down.)

$27,500 settlement for a New Jersey corporate lawyer who was injured on a commercial flight. A fellow passenger opened an overhead compartment and accidentally dropped a laptop on our client's head. He later took a taxi to the ER, and did not seek any other treatment. There was no medical evidence of an injury. Under the Montreal Convention, the governing law of international air travel, airlines are not liable for the negligence of fellow passengers on domestic flights. For this reason, the case was rejected by Cellino & Barnes and Weitz & Luxenburg. The LAW TEAM was able to settle the case based a novel legal theory that the claims adjuster did not want to test.