Results and Verdicts

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.

Automobile Versus Pedestrian Significant Arm Laceration Case Results in Four-figure Verdict

Scott Macdonald and Alex Macdonald secured a favorable verdict in Torrance on December 22, 2025.

This was a disputed liability case. Our client was proceeding westbound down a narrow street with cars parked on both sides. There was a tow truck facing eastbound, double-parked next to parked cars on the south side of the street. Plaintiff was interacting with the tow truck driver, who was unloading his motorcycle from the truck bed. There were multiple conflicting accounts of what Plaintiff was doing at the time of the impact. Plaintiff claimed that he was in the street next to the tow truck facing southwest talking to the tow truck driver on the flat bed. A witness claimed that Plaintiff was facing southbound looking at the tow truck. Plaintiff’s two liability experts agreed that Plaintiff was facing westbound in the street, with his back to defendant’s vehicle. The investigating officer reported that Plaintiff was facing southbound and turned to walk northbound into defendant’s path of travel. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was standing on the steps of the tow truck cab and jumped off into his vehicle. It was undisputed that Plaintiff’s right elbow/triceps region contacted Mr. Pina’s windshield, resulting in a penetrating wound to that area.

At trial, Plaintiff made claims for a penetrating wound on his right triceps resulting in scars and disfigurement of his tattoos, lower back pain, 4 years of past noneconomic damages, and 40 years of future noneconomic damages. During the four and a half years from the date of the accident and trial, Plaintiff attended a total of<nine medical appointments for his injuries from July 30, 2021 (DOL) and May 26, 2022, including a gap in treatment from August 5, 2021 to February 3, 2022, when he went to see his attorney-referred plastic surgeon. The defense demonstrated that plaintiff traveled to Mexico, Greece, Turkey, Australia, Switzerland, Italy, New Zealand, Cuba, Canada, Austria, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Mexico, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and other places from as soon as 17 days after the accident until a few months before trial.  Plaintiff, a self-proclaimed amateur bodybuilder, also claimed that he was unable to compete in a men’s physique competition.

During closing, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $5,000 in past meds, $6,000-$12,000 in future meds, $75,000-$95,000 for four years of past noneconomic damages, and $850,000-$950,000 for 40 years of future noneconomic damages, totaling $936,000-1,062,000. The jury came back with an award of $13,000 and 60% comparative fault on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the $50,000 policy was open and did not accept prior counsel’s 998 offer for the policy limit back in August 2025.

Parking Lot Slip and Fall Results in Broken Ankle

Scott Macdonald and Eric Macdonald secured a jury verdict in an alleged dangerous condition case in Orange County on July 29, 2025. Our clients owned a strip mall which included parking in front of businesses. Plaintiff had been working at a bar on the night in question and was headed to another bar at our client’s property when the incident occurred. She stepped out of her vehicle and rolled her ankle in a pothole in the asphalt.  She broke her ankle but did not seek any immediate medical treatment. She eventually presented to the hospital and was put into a cast. Subsequent medical visits and therapy allegedly did not cure the pain. At trial, it was argued that defendants should have known of the dangerous condition. Defendants argued that the pothole was open and obvious.  Plaintiff sought nearly a million dollars in lifetime pain and suffering and waived all economic loss. The jury ultimately awarded $50,000 and put 40% comparative fault on plaintiff.

Defense Verdict in Auto Service Center Injury Trial

On June 25, 2025, Joseph Fitzgerald and Danielle Boyd secured a $600,000 jury verdict while representing the defense in a Los Angeles County trial involving an alleged foot crush injury at an auto service center. Plaintiff sought approximately $25 million in damages, alleging unsafe conditions and significant ongoing injuries. After trial, the jury allocated a portion of responsibility to the plaintiff.

The case was covered by Courtroom View Network (CVN).

Click the link to read more about the trial and verdict: $25M Lawsuit Over Auto Service Center Foot Crush Injury Ends In $600K Verdict

Downtown Jury Finds 50/50 Liability in Rear-end Accident Involving Truck

On May 30, 2025, Scott Macdonald and Michael Moon secured a favorable verdict in Downtown Los Angeles.  Our client was an appliance delivery company.  Plaintiff claimed that they were rear-ended on the freeway without warning.  Defendant driver claimed that plaintiffs swerved into his lane and stopped rapidly, thereby cutting off our client’s stopping distance.  The plaintiffs had a witness that claimed that defendant was tailgating a vehicle, so the witness backed off on her speed and lost sight of the truck.  The witness then came upon the accident and called 911.  The EDR from plaintiffs’ vehicle was harvested.  This allegedly showed a lack of braking and any turning movement by plaintiffs’ vehicle within five seconds of the accident.  We established that defendant’s story had never changed, but plaintiffs had provided versions of the accident which were both inconsistent between stories and inconsistent with the EDR as well.  We argued that defendant’s version of the facts was consistent with the EDR from his perspective.

Plaintiff driver claimed the need for extensive pain management and a three level cervical surgery which was a fusion at C5-6 and disc replacements above and below the fusion.  Plaintiff sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering.  Plaintiff driver sought between $2,400,000 and $5,400,000 from the jury.

Plaintiff passenger claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and a thoracic outlet syndrome injury.  She sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering.  She sought between $790,000 and $1,900,000 from the jury.

The jury found both drivers were 50% at fault.  The jury awarded past medical and future medical bills, and awarded the numbers we suggested for past and future pain and suffering.  The total net verdict for plaintiffs was $659,000.  The parties have agreed to resolve the case post-trial.

Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case

Amy Akiyama and Megan K. Hawkins secured an appellate victory in a defamation case. On January 30, 2025, the California Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s Order granting Defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and striking the Plaintiff’s operative complaint without leave to amend.

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged: (1) Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which came into contact with a bicyclist in Defendant’s neighborhood; (2) Defendant witnessed the incident; (3) Plaintiff left the scene without exchanging information with the bicyclist; and (4) Defendant colluded with his neighbors to make misrepresentations about the incident to responding police officers.

Within a couple of days of being represented by counsel, Defendant brought an ex parte application for leave of the Trial Court to file an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (aka Anti-SLAPP) motion more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint. Defendant’s counsel argued that an anti-SLAPP motion had merit and that the purpose of an anti-SLAPP motion, i.e., early dismissal of a meritless lawsuit which threatens free speech, would be furthered by allowing such motion to proceed. The Trial Court agreed and granted leave to file the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Defendant then successfully obtained from the Trial Court an order striking the operative complaint, without leave to amend, pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP motion.  The Trial Court agreed with Defendant that: (1) the litigation arises from protected communications that Defendant allegedly had with police officers; (2) Plaintiff was unable to meet her burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits in light of the litigation/official proceeding privilege codified in Civil Code action 47, which recognizes the importance in providing citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected unlawful activity; and  (3) Plaintiff could not prove that any alleged communication was made with actual malice given that Plaintiff had no evidence that any statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s speculative opinion that Defendant colluded with his neighbors was not evidence.  A judgment of dismissal was entered following the Trial Court’s granting of the anti-SLAPP motion.

Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff contended the Trial Court abused its discretion in allowing the Anti-SLAPP motion to be heard more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint and erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that evidence was provided to the Trial Court in support of Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to file the anti-SLAPP motion such that its decision to grant leave could not be deemed whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious. Defense Counsel further distinguished all of Plaintiff’s authorities which had been cited by Plaintiff in an attempt to show the Trial Court erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Christmas Defense Verdict

On December 24, 2024, Scott Macdonald and Jorge Lopez Herrera secured a defense verdict in Van Nuys, California.  Plaintiff was a tenant of our client.  She claimed that a shower door failed and came off of its tracks.  The door hit plaintiff in the head and caused her head to be pushed back into a wall.  She fell to the floor and lost consciousness.  She was found by a family member that had been staying with her.  Plaintiff claimed that the shower door was dangerous and that defendant had been put on notice that the door was “dangerous” roughly six months before the incident and did not properly repair the door.  Defendant denied that he had ever been put on notice of anything being wrong with the door and disputed that it was dangerous.  It was established that the plaintiff used the shower door for six months and between 150-180 times after the alleged notice of the door being dangerous.  We argued that no one could say why the door came off the track, and that defendant could not have been put on notice of a dangerous condition because no one could identify what the dangerous condition was.

Plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury and sought between $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 from the jury.  Defendant conceded a minor concussion by history and sought to establish that any healing occurred immediately or very shortly thereafter.

The Jury deliberated and issued a defense verdict on liability.  Post-Trial motions at the trial Court level were denied.