Verdicts

St. Francis Circuit Court

Jim recently settled a case involving the rollover of a Ford 15-passenger van. This van has been the subject of warning notices published by NHTSA and other federal government agencies. Jackson reached a settlement for the nine plaintiffs and two estates that he was representing on the eve of trial. The amount of the settlement was confidential. Settlement negotiations did not begin until numerous depositions were conducted and the trial court had ruled on all pending motions. Jim had to conduct depositions across the country to get the case ready for trial, and as a result of his work and preparation, the parties were able to resolve the case prior to a jury being chosen.

Tyson Smith v. Firestone
Multi-District Litigation

Jim, an experienced products liability litigator, has successfully represented clients who were injured due to the notorious defective ATX tires manufactured by Firestone. These cases were transferred to a multi-district litigation. Jim’s determination in conducting depositions of key witnesses forced Firestone to enter into settlement negotiations with Jim’s clients.

In January 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a $3.3 million judgment in favor of Stephanie, Lauren and Emily Manus of Benton, Ark., in their lawsuit resulting from the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 on June 1, 1999, in Little Rock, Ark. This is the only passenger case related to the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 that was successfully tried to verdict and affirmed on appeal. Jim Jackson, alongside Mike Slack of Slack and Davis, represented the Manus Family in a five-day jury trial. The trial took place in April of 2001 in the U.S. District Court in Little Rock.

"The Manus Family and all victims of American Airlines Flight 1420 faced a horrific nightmare that awful night and suffered even further during this litigation,” Jim said.
In its Jan. 9 opinion, the court affirmed the damages awarded to the Manus family, noting that, “American did not contest its liability for compensatory damages, leaving only the amount to be determined by the jury.”

The Court of Appeals also commented, “It was for the jury to determine the amount that it felt would adequately compensate Stephanie and her daughters for the terror they experienced during and immediately after the crash itself, as well as for the post-crash trauma they have suffered and will continue to suffer. Although the amounts awarded may well represent the outer limit of that supported by the evidence, we cannot say that the experienced district court abused its discretion by ruling that the verdicts were not excessive as a matter of law.