2026

Defendants’ Summary Judgment Obtained Where Handyman Falls Off Ladder at Defendants’ Home

On August 7, 2026, in the San Diego County Superior Court, Edye Hill secured a summary judgment victory against a Plaintiff who fell off a ladder while working at Defendants’ home. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for 1) General Negligence; 2) Premise Liability; 3) Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant To California Labor Code §§ 3700 & 3706; 4) Negligence Per Se; and 5) Loss of Consortium. After taking over the defense from prior counsel, Macdonald & Cody, LLP completed and successfully argued the summary judgment motion, securing a favorable judgment for the Defendants.

Plaintiff owned and operated his own handyman business. He testified that his handyman work did not require a contractor’s license. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was using a ladder to patch areas of the garage ceiling at Defendants’ home. Plaintiff lost his balance and fell from the ladder while working. The ladder was owned by Plaintiff. The work Plaintiff was hired to perform was expected to be completed within two to three hours. Plaintiff provided Defendants with an invoice for two hours of work and mileage, totaling $106.00.

The Court agreed with Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff was excluded from workers’ compensation coverage under Labor Code section and was not entitled to benefits, including the presumption of employer negligence under Labor Code section 3351 because a handyman performing work at a residential property is a residential employee.

For General Negligence, Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked evidence to establish that Defendants owed a duty, breached any duty, or caused the incident. The Court concurred, finding no evidence attributing Plaintiff’s alleged injuries to any alleged breach of duty or causation by Defendants. Ultimately the Court found that Plaintiff’s use of his own ladder, Plaintiff’s placement of the ladder, and Plaintiff’s balance were the proximate causes of Plaintiff’s fall.

Regarding the Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant to California Labor Code sections §§ 3700 & 3706, Defendants argued that Plaintiff was not an employee because he worked fewer than 52 hours. Defense Counsel was able to overcome the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 2750.5 that a worker performing services requiring a license is presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor because Plaintiff worked for only two hours. Because Plaintiff not being an employee, Defendants were not required to provide workers’ compensation insurance.

Under the Negligence Per Se cause of action, defense counsel argued that Plaintiff fell within the handyman exemption from licensing requirements because the project had a contract price of less than $500 and the work performed on the garage was considered minor. Defendants’ further argued that the failure to obtain a contractor’s license was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that the lack of workers’ compensation insurance coverage was the proximate cause of the accident or that workers’ compensation coverage would have prevented Plaintiff from falling off the ladder.

Finally, defense counsel argued that Defendants were not liable for the Loss of Consortium claim because Defendants were not liable for the incident. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to prevail on the derivative claim because the underlying injury claim against the Defendants was unsuccessful.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Wear a Seat Belt Results in Defense Verdict

On August 18, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Alex Macdonald secured a defense verdict in Orange County. This was a disputed liability case. Plaintiff and his wife were passengers on a mini-coach vehicle driven by our client, the defendant driver. Plaintiff claimed injury primarily to his right knee after he fell out of his seat during a left turn executed by the driver between 5-13 mph. In the nearly two years following the incident, Plaintiff had five right knee surgeries. At trial, Plaintiff admitted that there was a seat belt available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not wear a seat belt, and there was nothing wrong with the left turn executed by the driver. Plaintiff and his counsel also admitted to the jury that Plaintiff would not have been injured had he been wearing a seat belt.

The sole issue for the jury was whether or not the defendant driver gave a safety speech to the occupants of the vehicle, including an instruction to wear the available seat belts. Plaintiff claimed that the driver did not, and Defendants claimed that the driver did. Plaintiff offered only himself and his wife as witnesses in support of Plaintiff’s position. Defendant offered the driver, company personnel, and an independent witness on the bus to support the position that the driver gave the speech, and always does on his trips.

Plaintiff waived all economic damages and only sought past and future pain and suffering damages. During closing, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $2,000,000 in past pain and suffering, and $3,000,000 in future pain and suffering, totaling $5,000,000. In a nine-to-three verdict, the jury determined that the driver was not negligent. Prior to trial, Defendants made a 998 offer for $150,000, which Plaintiff did not accept.

Jury Awards $210,000 for Admitted Liability Accident with Two Claimed Surgeries

On May 27, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Steven Hingst secured a favorable trial verdict in Orange County. The matter involved a significant rear-end impact. We admitted liability, but contested causation for the claimed injuries. Plaintiff underwent a left shoulder surgery for a torn labrum and rotator cuff. Plaintiff also underwent a minimally invasive lumbar discectomy for alleged disc herniations at L4-5 and L5-S1. Plaintiff waived all past medical specials except for the lumbar procedure for which she sought $160,000. She sought future care, including a cervical fusion surgery, and requested $350,000.  She asked the jury to award a total of $4,000,000.

We were able to demonstrate for the jury that the medical treatment received was lacking in a continuity of care given her being transferred from lien doctor to lien doctor.  e introduced evidence of a subsequent accident which preceded the lumbar surgery. Plaintiff claimed she was uninjured in the subsequent loss.  The jury awarded $100,000 in past medical bills, $75,000 in future medical bills, $25,000 in past pain and suffering and $10,000 in future pain and suffering. We will seek costs given that we had offered $500,000 by way of C.C.P. 998.

Orange County Jury Awards Plaintiff Just Over 10% of Eight Figures Requested at Trial

On January 30, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Danielle Boyd secured a verdict in the Orange County Superior Court for an admitted liability, alleged traumatic brain injury case.  The case involved a side-swipe accident in which plaintiff’s driver’s side door was hit by a third vehicle after our client ran a red light. Plaintiff hit her head against the passenger side window, causing a hematoma. She was self-transported to the hospital after the collision, where she was diagnosed with a concussion. Imaging also revealed a pre-existing Chiari I malformation. Plaintiff sought care with multiple lien providers following the accident with complaints of headaches and other associated neurological symptoms. She claimed a significant life disruption, including difficulties working and caring for three children. Plaintiff sought over $15,000,000 at trial for a life-long injury.

Mr. Macdonald and Ms. Boyd introduced evidence that two of plaintiff’s three children were born after the accident. Social media and investigative footage demonstrated that plaintiff was not as impaired as claimed. Expert testimony established that the concussion was mild and would have resolved within a short period of time.

After deliberations, the jury awarded less than half of plaintiff’s past medical bills, $50,000. The jury awarded a small percentage of the Life Care Plan sought by plaintiff, $115,000. The jury awarded past pain and suffering of $450,000 and future pain and suffering of $40,000.  The total verdict was $655,000.

Following Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on grounds of future noneconomic being inadequate and baseless allegations of juror misconduct, the court denied, and the verdict was successfully protected.