---
title: "Negligence | Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": "Negligence | Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/ANE_BP1B_DOE.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-)

April 1, 2026

###### [Juvenile Detention Sexual Abuse Lawsuit and Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement)

This litigation involved nineteen women, appearing as Jane Does, who alleged a harrowing history of systemic sexual abuse while they were minors in the custody of Los Angeles County juvenile detention facilities. The plaintiffs identified several "camps," including Camp Joseph Scott and Camp Kenyon Scudder, as the sites where Deputy Probation Officers leveraged their absolute authority to commit acts of rape, sexual assault, and harassment. The lawsuit, filed following the passage of California’s Assembly Bill 218, accused the County of "Negligent Supervision" and "Constructive Fraud," asserting that officials had ignored the predatory behavior of staff members for years. While the County initially filed a general denial and raised various legal defenses, the parties ultimately avoided a trial by reaching a full settlement in October 2025. This case highlights the ongoing legal reckoning regarding the safety and oversight of vulnerable youths within governmental correctional institutions.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/BROWN_RALSTON.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-mortgage-servicer-in-escrow-dispute-case)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements)

March 27, 2026

###### [Jury Sides With Mortgage Servicer in Escrow Dispute Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-mortgage-servicer-in-escrow-dispute-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-mortgage-servicer-in-escrow-dispute-case)

A Bridgeport homeowner who accused his mortgage servicer of inflating escrow payments, pocketing insurance premium refunds, and slapping on unwarranted late fees walked away empty-handed after a Connecticut jury delivered a complete defense verdict. The jury found no negligence in the servicer's handling of the escrow account and determined the homeowner failed to prove he met his own obligations under the mortgage contract. Claims of negligent misrepresentation also fell flat, leaving the servicer clear on all counts.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/KERR_MARCIA.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-finds-homeowner-not-liable-in-delivery-driver-dog-case)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Personal Injury**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/personal-injury)

March 17, 2026

###### [Jury Finds Homeowner Not Liable in Delivery Driver Dog Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-finds-homeowner-not-liable-in-delivery-driver-dog-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-finds-homeowner-not-liable-in-delivery-driver-dog-case)

The legal battle began when Marcia Kerr, an Uber Eats driver, filed a civil lawsuit against Alejandro P. Menaez Sr. following a delivery incident on May 7, 2021. Kerr alleged that after she delivered food to the Defendant's Bridgeport residence, Menaez allowed two large dogs to rush out the front door. She claimed the dogs chased her, forcing her to jump onto the hood of a car to escape as the animals lunged at her. Kerr sought over $15,000 in damages for a long list of injuries, including shoulder and spinal strains, acute anxiety, and post-traumatic headaches. In a handwritten defense, Menaez denied the allegations entirely, stating that his family was bedridden with COVID-19 at the time of the alleged attack. He further argued that the Plaintiff's story was inconsistent, noting that his son witnessed Kerr sitting in the passenger side of a vehicle while someone else drove, and questioned why no emergency services were called if an attack truly occurred. After reviewing the conflicting accounts, a jury at the Bridgeport Superior Court returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant on February 19, 2026, finding that Menaez was not legally responsible for Kerr's claimed injuries.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/CLARK_IV_WALTER.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/misdiagnosis-of-brain-bleed-leads-to-life-altering-injury)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Medical Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/medical-malpractice)

March 13, 2026

###### [Misdiagnosis of Brain Bleed Leads to Life-Altering Injury](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/misdiagnosis-of-brain-bleed-leads-to-life-altering-injury)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/misdiagnosis-of-brain-bleed-leads-to-life-altering-injury)

Jennifer Clark visited a Yale New Haven Hospital satellite emergency room with a sudden, "thunderclap" headache and severe hypertension. Although medical staff noted a suspected brain hemorrhage on her chart, they failed to order an immediate scan and instead administered a migraine medication that is known to worsen internal bleeding. This delay and medication error allegedly caused a minor 4mm bleed to expand into a catastrophic, permanent brain injury, leaving Ms. Clark with profound cognitive deficits and a loss of life’s enjoyments.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/MATTHEW_J_LAWRENCE.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/florida-medical-malpractice-ct-scan-negligence-verdict)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Medical Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/medical-malpractice)

March 12, 2026

###### [Florida Medical Malpractice: CT Scan Negligence Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/florida-medical-malpractice-ct-scan-negligence-verdict)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/florida-medical-malpractice-ct-scan-negligence-verdict)

The Estate of John R. Lawrence filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida and several physicians following his death from a bowel perforation in early 2022. The Plaintiff alleged that a radiologist failed to properly interpret a CT scan, missing critical signs of vascular compromise and imminent perforation. While the defense maintained that the medical care met professional standards, the litigation moved toward a jury trial to determine the liability of the treating physicians. On February 13, 2026, the jury delivered a verdict assessing negligence and awarding damages for the loss of companionship and mental pain and suffering endured by the decedent’s surviving spouse.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/JOSEPH_WILLIAMS.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/52m-verdict-for-sysco-riverside-whistleblower-retaliation)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Retaliation**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/retaliation)

February 9, 2026

###### [$52M Verdict for Sysco Riverside Whistleblower Retaliation](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/52m-verdict-for-sysco-riverside-whistleblower-retaliation)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/52m-verdict-for-sysco-riverside-whistleblower-retaliation)

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury delivered a staggering blow to Sysco Riverside, Inc., awarding over $52 million to five former employees who stood up against dangerous working conditions. The plaintiffs, who served as yard "spotters," alleged that the food distribution giant maintained a culture that prioritized delivery speed over public and employee safety. After six years of litigation, the jury found that the workers faced systematic harassment and were ultimately forced out of their jobs for reporting safety hazards, such as excessive speeding in the truck yard. The verdict included approximately $31 million in compensatory damages for emotional distress and lost wages, followed by $21.3 million in punitive damages to penalize the company's "malice and oppression".

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/DAVEY_CATHERINE1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-awards-305000-in-flash-dancers-wrongful-death-case)

[**Premises Liability**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/premises-liability) [**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence)

January 13, 2026

###### [Jury Awards $305,000 in Flash Dancers Wrongful Death Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-awards-305000-in-flash-dancers-wrongful-death-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-awards-305000-in-flash-dancers-wrongful-death-case)

A legal battle spanning several years concluded in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court when a jury held the owners and operators of Flash Dancers Nightclub accountable for the 2019 shooting death of Stephen R. Walker. The estate successfully argued that the defendants failed to provide adequate security despite a known history of criminal activity in the area. The jury found that both the landlord, Krej Leasing, Inc., and the operator, OC Flashdancers, LLC, exhibited wanton negligence. Specifically, the court determined that the defendants failed to warn the victim of dangerous conditions on the premises. The final verdict apportioned 80% of the fault to the nightclub operator and 20% to the leasing company, awarding $305,000.60 to cover funeral expenses and the mental pain and suffering of Walker's surviving children.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Fire_Insurance_Exchange.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-homeowners-in-213k-falling-tree-damage-case)

[**Premises Liability**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/premises-liability) [**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence)

January 1, 2026

###### [Jury Rules for Homeowners in $213K Falling Tree Damage Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-homeowners-in-213k-falling-tree-damage-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-homeowners-in-213k-falling-tree-damage-case)

In a subrogation lawsuit filed in Butte County Superior Court, Fire Insurance Exchange sought to recover $213,446.26 from property owners Gary and Helen Botsford after a tree from their Paradise, California property fell and damaged a neighboring home in October 2021. While the jury found the Botsfords were negligent in maintaining their trees, they concluded this negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. Judge Stephen E. Benson entered judgment favoring the defendants on October 22, 2025, awarding them costs of suit and denying the insurance company any recovery.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Lyanne_Santos_Reyes.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-defense-in-connecticut-wrongful-birth-case)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Medical Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/medical-malpractice)

January 1, 2026

###### [Jury Rules for Defense in Connecticut Wrongful Birth Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-defense-in-connecticut-wrongful-birth-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-defense-in-connecticut-wrongful-birth-case)

A Connecticut jury delivered a defense verdict on October 30, 2025, in a wrongful birth medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Lyanne Santos-Reyes against her obstetric care providers. Santos-Reyes alleged that Dr. Rachel L. Leonardi and Naugatuck Valley Women's Health Specialists failed to detect her daughter's spina bifida during prenatal ultrasounds in 2018, depriving her of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy. The plaintiff claimed the August 2018 ultrasounds failed to properly visualize the fetal spine, and she was never informed about incomplete anatomical views or offered additional testing. Her daughter was born with meningomyelocele, the most severe form of spina bifida, requiring lifetime care. The defendants denied all negligence claims, and the jury found in their favor on all issues.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Imidacloprid_Cases1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/44m-verdict-against-nutrien-ag-in-pistachio-case-)

[**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Products Liability**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/category/products-liability)

December 24, 2025

###### [$4.4M Verdict Against Nutrien Ag in Pistachio Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/44m-verdict-against-nutrien-ag-in-pistachio-case-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/negligence/jury-verdict/44m-verdict-against-nutrien-ag-in-pistachio-case-)

A Fresno County Superior Court jury awarded over $4.4 million in damages to M.C. Watte Ranches and Brian Watte Farms, finding Nutrien Ag Solutions primarily liable for the loss of their 2020 pistachio harvest. The jury determined that Nutrien Ag Solutions was negligent in its advice regarding the application of the insecticide imidacloprid, which resulted in residue levels exceeding legal safety tolerances and rendered the crops unmarketable. While the jury attributed 20% of the responsibility to the farming operation, they assigned 80% of the fault to Nutrien, awarding significant lost profits and pre-judgment interest to the growers.

1

2

3

...

26