Problem faced by Client

Our client an national fast food chain was sued in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff was shot and paralyzed while going thru a drive thru in a third party criminal assault which plaintiff alleged resulted from insufficient and inadequate security.  This case was challenging because:

·        The plaintiff was represented by one of the Chicago’s top personal injury law firms with a long history of obtaining multi million dollar verdicts on behalf of their clients;

·       There was a strong sympathy factor in favor for the 20 year old plaintiff who was the father of a 3 year old child;

·         There was a history of prior criminal activity at this restaurant;

·       The plaintiff was attacked in single lane drive thru, that had no room to exit

·        Defense witnesses acknowledged that the drive thru area was not well lit

·         There was potential exposure of 34 million dollars

·       Plaintiff’s counsel refused to make a settlement demand prior to trial

Outcome Desired by Client

The client wanted to limit their exposure by obtaining a reasonable settlement or a defense verdict if the matter went to trial.

Defense Strategy employed by Greene and Letts:
Aggressive Discovery and Motion Practice

Greene and Letts aggressively defended the matter at trial challenging the theory of liability presented through Plaintiff’s security expert.

Outcome Obtained by Greene and Letts

After all the evidence was in and the jury was deliberating, plaintiff’s counsel had a sudden change of heart and accepted an offer by the excess insurance carrier that was less 10% of the purported $34 million exposure.

Client Reaction

The client was pleased with the outcome.