Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorneys
Kiesel Law LLP is a nationally recognized consumer litigation firm specializing in complex litigation, class action, catastrophic injury, consumer fraud, pharmaceutical and medical device injury, unfair business practices, construction defect, truck accident and environmental litigation.
Paul Kiesel Named to the Daily Journal’s 2014 Top 100 List
The Daily Journal has recognized Paul Kiesel for his outstanding work both in the courtroom and on behalf of the courts by selecting him as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California. The Journal lauded Paul’s efforts as one of the leaders of the consolidated litigation against Fedex Corporation. This litigation stems from the tragic crash that took the lives of five students and 3 adults when a Fedex tractor-trailer crashed into a bus full of students on their way to a college tour.
Paul has also been singled out for his work as Co-Chair of the Open Courts Collation, a bipartisan committee of attorneys and other stakeholders throughout California, including the Chamber of Commerce, who are advocating for greater funding of the civil justice system.
Paul Kiesel said, “I am honored to be selected as one of the top 100 lawyers in the state of California, where there are over 225,000 practicing attorneys.”
Federal Express Bus Crash Lawsuit Filed
A wrongful death action has been filed by Kiesel Law LLP against Federal Express on behalf of the family of Ismael Jimenez.
Paul Kiesel stated at the May 20, 2014, news conference that the lawsuit is on behalf of Ismael Jimenez, 18, an aspiring college student and artist. Ismael and other high school seniors were headed north for a tour of Humboldt State University when the bus was struck head-on by the FedEx truck. “Ismael sacrificed his life to save the lives of other students on the bus,” noted Kiesel. “This was the Bus Full of Dreams, because these were disadvantaged children who had excelled in school and were the first in their families to attend college.” “Liability rests first and foremost with Federal Express. Federal Express owned, maintained and ran that tractor unit,” said Kiesel. “By bringing this claim now, it gives the family the legal right to determine why this tragic crash happened.” Ismael Jimenez rushed to the front of the bus as it was filling with smoke, broke out a window and helped lift others to safety. Evelin Jimenez, Ismael’s sister, said, “He could have saved his own life, but he put the lives of others first. He is a Hero.”
$4,014,069.00 Verdict on Behalf of Tractor-Trailer Collision Victim
“And now you know why we are here” were the words that attorney Paul R. Kiesel used in rebuttal at the close of a ten day trial in Santa Rosa. Paul was reminding the jury of the defense lawyer’s opening statement two weeks earlier when the Defendant trucking company admitted full responsibility for the crash and it’s lawyer said “We want to make it right”. This personal injury trial focused on injuries that the Plaintiff sustained when his stopped pickup truck was rear-ended by the Defendant’s 45,000 pound Tractor-Trailer that was traveling at 45 miles per hour at the time of the impact. The driver of the pickup truck, who was 22 years of age at the time of the crash, suffered Compression Fractures of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Thoracic vertebrae, was confined to a body cast for 9 months, has undergone (and continues to need) post-accident medical care and treatment and he has and – for the rest of his life – will continue to experience a lifetime of daily constant pain. However, as the trial progressed, it became apparent to the jury that there was a sizeable gap between defense lawyer’s words and their true intentions. Not only did the defense lawyer disagree with the Victim’s expert witnesses during the trial, which included treating physicians from the Mayo Clinic and St. Jude’s Medical Center, the defense attorney ended up greatly disagreeing with the defense’s very own expert witnesses as to the costs of that lifetime of future medical care and the lost earning capacity that this young man sustained due to the Defendant’s own (admitted) negligence. Rather than “making it right” it became obvious to the jury that the defense was only attempting to minimize, reduce and avoid financial responsibility for the crippling injuries that its driver’s negligent operation of the Big-Rig caused. Because the defense lawyer and the defense of the case didn’t do so, it was left to the jury to “make it right,” and they did by returning this sizeable verdict on the Victim’s behalf.