Case Studies
Marishia Scott vs.
Foreline Security Corporation
Marishia Scott vs. Foreline Security Corporation
Nature of Injury:
Gunshot wound to cervical spine severing spinal cord at C4-C5; quadriplegic.
Abstract:
On March 20, 1999, a robber entered United Southern Bank in Mt. Dora, committed a robbery, murdered one teller, and shot and paralyzed Plaintiff, another teller. Plaintiff alleged that the robber chose this bank, after casing the bank and other banks, because he believed that he could commit the robbery, kill the tellers, and take the surveillance equipment, which was in plain view on the manager’s desk, in order to conceal his identity.
Expert Witnesses:
Jeffrey Zwirn, Security Alarm, Teaneck, NJ
Dan Kennedy, Ph.D., Criminology/Sociology, Troy, MI Gregg McCrary, Criminology, Fredericksburg, VA Paul Deutsch, Vocational Rehabilitation, Orlando Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., Economist, Orlando Dianna Harper, M.D., Physiatry, Orlando Mark Dersch, M.D., Urology, Ocala
State of Missouri vs.
George Reville
State of Missouri vs. George Reville
Murder Conviction, Appeal and Murder Re-Trial
Nature of Injury:
Abstract:
Revelle said the gunman fled but apologized for the shooting. Lisa Revelle was taken to a hospital. She never regained consciousness and died not long after. The incident in question occurred at 4:57 a.m. on Sept. 28, 1994, when, according to Revelle, he heard beeping coming from the keypad of his alarm system. He claimed that, before he could get to the gun he owned, one of two masked intruders put a gun to his wife’s head and said, “Turn the alarm off banker George or I’ll blow her head off!” Revelle later testified that, while he was attempting to deactivate the alarm, he heard a gunshot and then the alarm sounded. He said the intruders fled before police arrived on the scene. His wife, Lisa, was rushed to the hospital, where she died a short time later from a gunshot wound to her head. In his first trial, Revelle’s version of the crime was refuted by an investigation of the alarm system. The jury found Revelle guilty and recommended he be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In November 1997, the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the conviction. The retrial began in December 1998. Defense Attorney Shawn Askinosie handled the appeal. Askinosie brought in alarm expert Jeffrey D. Zwirn, who used a replica of Revelle’s system to show that an intruder could have gotten into the home and the display would have read just as the police found it on the morning of the murder. In fact, Zwirn said, the alarm had been poorly programmed and improperly installed and was untrustworthy as any sort of evidence. On December 13, 1998, the jury acquitted Revelle.
Expert Witnesses:
Jeffrey Zwirn, Security Alarm, Teaneck, NJ
Jenny Smith, Missouri Highway Patrol Crime Lab
Skip Palenik, Trace Evidence Expert
Larry Ellison, CPA, CFE
Dr. Kenneth Fattmann, M.D., Psychologist
Verdict:
Defense Verdict. On the afternoon of Friday, Dec. 11, the jury deliberated for approximately six hours before emerging with their verdict: NOT GUILTY
Letter From Defense Counsel, Shawn Askinosie, Dated December 22, 1998
George Elenbark vs.
Steven Evens and Rack Bar and Grill
George Elenbark vs. Steven Evens and Rack Bar and Grill
Nature of Injury:
Plaintiffs’ counsel projected that Mary Elenbark, who was the primary breadwinner in the Elenbark household, had future lost income of approximately $300,000 and there would be lost household services to her husband and child in the amount of $231,050.
George Elenbark didn’t claim any lost wages. George Elenbark also advanced a Portee claim for the emotional suffering as a result of witnessing the injury and suffering of his wife.
Abstract:
On April 20, 2007, plaintiff George Elenbark, 40, a machinist, was operating his motorcycle on Route 30/White Horse Pike in Atco, with his wife, plaintiff’s decedent Mary Elenbark, 44, an executive assistant to a mortgage company chief executive officer, as a passenger, when they collided with an automobile driven by Steven Evans who had just pulled out of Rack’s Bar and Grill. Evans had been drinking beer there as he celebrated his 21st birthday. Evans left the bar at around 9 p.m. and pulled out of the parking lot directly into the path of the Elenbarks’ motorcycle. Evans fled the scene but was apprehended within minutes by the Winslow Township Police Department. His blood alcohol level, according to a breath test was 0.10. Both Elenbark’s suffered catastrophic injuries and Mary Elenbark died from her injuries a week following the accident. George Elenbark sued Evans for motor vehicle negligence and Rack’s Bar and Grill for negligently serving him alcohol. On behalf of the Estate of Mary Elenbark, her sister, Jane Spare sued the same defendants. That lawsuit also named George Elenbark as a defendant and Jerome Hope, an individual who Evans claimed pulled his car up alongside of his and obscured his view of oncoming traffic. The Estate’s claim against George Elenbark was voluntarily dismissed early in the proceeding, and the claim against Jerome Hope was also dismissed by way of an unopposed summary judgment motion. The remaining claims of George Elenbark and the Estate of Mary Elenbark were consolidated and proceeded to trial against Rack’s Bar and Grill and Evans. The jury was shown evidence that Rack’s Bar had intentionally altered surveillance videos. The videos had segments missing, and plaintiffs’ counsel contended that these were intentional alterations to the nearly 60 hours of relevant video footage, which they sought to confirm through the testimony of a video fraud expert.
Evans, who was sentenced to four years in prison for leaving the scene of an accident where serious bodily injury occurred, initially claimed that he was not even aware that he had been involved in an accident. The bar vehemently denied that any of the video surveillance cameras in its establishment had been tampered with and attributed the alleged “gaps” in the recovered videos to vagrancies in the surveillance system.
Plaintiffs’ counsel sought and obtained an adverse inference charge whereby the judge instructed the jury that an adverse inference could be drawn if the jury accepted the plaintiffs’ proofs that the videotapes had been altered or tampered by the defendant tavern.
Verdict:
Plaintiff’s Verdict. The jury found the bar was 75-percent liable for negligence and Evans was 25-percent liable. The jury awarded $14,207,563.50.
George Elenbark- $773,014 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost $3,000,000 Personal Injury: pain & suffering; $2,500,000 Personal Injury: emotional distress (Portee)
Mary Elenbark- $300,500 Personal Injury: Future Lost Earnings Capability $234,050 Personal Injury: household services; $7,400,000 Personal Injury: lost assistance/care/training/advice/guidance/counsel/companionship
Jacqueline Fishbein vs.
Robert Fishbein
Jacqueline Fishbein vs. Robert Fishbein
Nature of Injury:
Domestic Violence
Abstract:
Expert Witnesses:
Jeffrey D. Zwirn, Alarm Expert
John Hughes, Hughes Fire & Security Systems
Verdict:
Plaintiffs’ Verdict. See court ruling here.