Case Results

At Piering Law Firm, our experienced Sacramento personal injury attorneys are proud of the many positive case results we have achieved for our past clients. In fact, our firm is recognized for our results by many prestigious legal associations.

While no attorney or law firm can guarantee any case result, we invite our current and prospective clients to view our past history to learn more about our dedication to standing up for the injured and wronged. We bring our past experiences and comprehensive knowledge to play in every case we take on and will stand by your side to help you achieve the results you deserve.

To schedule your free initial case consultation, call (916) 476-2399 or contact Piering Law Firm online. We charge no legal fee unless we win.

    • Auto Accident Fick vs. A 1 Beverage Co.
      Fick vs. A 1 Beverage Co. Resolved

      A case where our client was rear-ended while traveling to San Francisco with her daughter. Client had surgery to her neck as a result of her injuries. The case was resolved for $650.000.

    • Auto Accident Bush vs. County of Sacramento
      Bush vs. County of Sacramento Settlement

      A case where client was driving a school bus and hit by a concrete truck making an illegal turning maneuver. Client sustained various injuries, including injuries to her neck and back.

    • Product Liability Obidinski vs. Upright (Scissor Lift)
      Obidinski vs. Upright (Scissor Lift) Settlement

      An action against an equipment rental company and manufacturer of a scissor lift that tipped over while being used by client to paint the facade of a building in downtown Sacramento. Confidential settlement reached as the case approached trial.

    • Product Liability Martin vs. Toyota — (Rollover)
      Martin vs. Toyota — (Rollover) Settlement

      A vehicle roll-over action that resulted in a confidential settlement. Client had recently retired and was on his way to see his granddaughter when he was hit in the rear by a party exiting the freeway, causing his vehicle to lose control and roll over. Significant injuries to brain, neck and internal organs.

    • Motorcycle Accident Against Shuttle Bus on Freeway
      Against Shuttle Bus on Freeway $2,500,000.00

      Case involving serious injuries to a motorcycle rider who was involved in an accident with a shuttle bus on the freeway in San Francisco. The police report concluded our client was the cause of the crash and the shuttle bus driver claimed the motorcycle rider ran into the back of the shuttle bus. The only witness to the event also claimed the motorcycle rider was at fault. Detailed investigation and tireless efforts on the part of our firm showed the shuttle bus was operating at an unreasonably slowed speed on the freeway and changed lanes when it was not safe to do so. We were also able to show that the only witness to event, who blamed our client, was mistaken in many factual assumptions and therefore his account of the event was unreliable. Finally, we showed that the conclusions reached by the CHP were misguided and mistaken. The net result was a substantial recovery for our client who at first, told he caused the accident.

    • Wrongful Death Wrongful Death Incident
      Wrongful Death Incident Settlement

      Rob Piering of Piering Law Firm secured a $1,250,000 wrongful death settlement for the five siblings of a 67-year-old pedestrian hit by a vehicle making a right hand turn on a rainy night in Sacramento. The decedent was never married, had no children and was not working at the time of the incident. Oftentimes, the decedent was homeless. He did, however, stay in contact with his siblings and would generally make family gatherings and holiday celebrations. There were no witnesses to the event. During a winter downpour, the defendant was stopped at a red light a few cars back from the intersection where she intended to make a right-hand turn. From there, she had a view of the intersection, pedestrian crosswalk and sidewalk. She said the decedent was not standing at the corner and did not see him at any time prior to hitting him as he was crossing the street. The defendant said as she was making her right hand turn she had a green light and the pedestrian signal facing the decedent read "don't walk". The defendant claimed the decedent "darted out" in front of her, against a "don't walk" signal and was wearing dark clothing. The decedent was in and out of consciousness at the scene and unable to give any information about what happened. While en route to the hospital, he lost consciousness. He passed away a few weeks later as a result of head trauma. The traffic collision report was inconclusive. However, traffic signal phase diagrams were secured from the City and showed that if the defendant had a green light, it was likely that the decedent had a "walk" signal at the time the defendant entered the intersection. The defendant's primary limits of $250,000 were tendered in response to a conditional limits demand that required disclosure of all other coverages. The defendant had an excess policy of $1,000,000.00 which was tendered along with the primary limits.

    • Premises Liability Voekel vs. San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
      Voekel vs. San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Selltement

      Train failed to stop and collided with train stop, causing client, a passenger in the train, to be thrown from her seat in the train.

    • Auto Accident Cervantes vs. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Dept.
      Cervantes vs. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. Settlement

      An action where plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by her husband, was hit by a police officer driving a patrol car to investigate an alleged burglary. Plaintiff sustained a low back injury, which ultimately required surgery.

    • Premises Liability Ward vs. Amtrak
      Ward vs. Amtrak Settlement

      Case where client was hit by a train while crossing common bridge thoroughfare. Through our persistence and investigation we were able to establish that the train operator actually increased throttle pressure when he first saw our client thereby depriving him of the ability to bring the train to a safe stop prior to impacting client. The collision resulted in a below knee amputation.

    • Auto Accident Murphy vs. Fox
      Murphy vs. Fox Verdict

      A single-vehicle automobile accident in which our client was a passenger of a vehicle whose driver fell asleep returning home on a rural country road. The insurance company continued to make low settlement offers such that a trial was required where the verdict was more than seven times greater than the insurance company's highest offer.

    • Motorcycle Accident Patillo vs. Bledsoe
      Patillo vs. Bledsoe Settlement

      Motorcycle vs. automobile collision resulting in below knee amputation. Client was riding motorcycle and defendant pulled out in front of him, resulting in a severe injury to client's leg, which ultimately led to the amputation of his leg, just below the knee.

    • Product Liability Arshad vs. Mohammad
      Arshad vs. Mohammad Settlement

      Client was asked to help remove a cherry picker from the rafters of a tire shop. The ladder that plaintiff was provided collapsed, causing plaintiff to sustain an impaling injury.

    • Motorcycle Accident Montgomery vs. Din
      Montgomery vs. Din Policy Limits Settlement

      Disputed motorcycle accident where insurance company disputed liability and damages. Case was resolved to the maximum insurance limits carried by the defendant.

    • Motorcycle Accident Morioka vs. Devader
      Morioka vs. Devader Structured

      Complex wrongful death motorcycle accident involving product liability claims against both helmet and motorcycle luggage manufacturers. The case was litigated to a successful conclusion, which provided a permanent stream of income to the minor children represented as a result of the wrongful death of their mother. The case also caused the manufacturer of the luggage bag to stop and/or modify production of the type motorcycle bag that was attached to the decedent's motorcycle.

    • Wrongful Death Against Bar Security Company
      Against Bar Security Company Settlement

      34 year old software sales associate out with friends drinking at a bar in San Francisco. After a few hours, he leaves the bar to go home and gets in an argument outside of the club with a security guard. The security guard alleges the patron threatened and pushed him. In response, the security guard punches the patron in the face. The patron falls back and hits his head on the concrete. The patron loses consciousness and has snoring respirations (suggestive of TBI). The bar’s designated medical lead is not EMT certified and arrives to find the patron mumbling and lying face-up. The bar’s medical lead does not call for medical services and concludes the patron is drunk. He escorts the patron to a nearby bus stop, and while attending to the patron, takes the patron’s cell phone. The patron was later observed vomiting blood by bar employees and security personnel. A passerby discovered the patron unconscious an hour later just down the street from the entrance to the bar. The passerby calls for an ambulance and the patron was taken to the hospital. The patron dies 9 days thereafter as a result of traumatic brain bleed. During the course of the wrongful death action, we established the bar did not have a City approved security plan; did not have an on-site EMT; did not have an established medical response plan; failed to call for medical care; failed to have a minimally competent medical evaluation of the decedent and lacked a chain of command for implementation of policies to address injuries to patrons of the bar. The security guard and security company that employed him were sued along with the bar. Although they claimed self-defense, pointed depositions revealed the security guard could have retreated without punching the patron. It was also shown that the security guard violated company policy by not calling for medical assistance for the patron and failed to call for available back-up to assist him in dealing with the patron before he punched the patron. The bar and security company tendered their respective policy limits of $1,000,000 each, for a combined settlement of $2,000,000.00.

    • Uninsured Motorist Thompson vs. CSAA
      Thompson vs. CSAA Resolved

      Case where client was hit by an uninsured motorist, which led to a claim against her insurance carrier. The action was resolved just prior to arbitration.

    • Civil Rights Violation Pautov vs. County of Placer
      Pautov vs. County of Placer Settlement

      $825,000 settlement for civil rights violation as a result of excessive force by off-duty sheriff's deputy.

    • Auto Accident Moore vs. Mercer
      Moore vs. Mercer Verdict

      Low speed automobile collision with low back injury tried to a verdict. The insurance company initially offered $40,000, then increased the offer to $90,000 and $300,000, 10 days before trial. The jury returned its verdict after six days of trial.

    • Product Liability Earles vs. Stanley Corp. (Defective Thermos)
      Earles vs. Stanley Corp. (Defective Thermos) Settlement

      Client lost vision in one eye when thermos stopper projected into his eye as he attempted to open the thermos. Complex reconstruction exposed that the thermos was designed with defective venting capacities causing unusually high pressure to exist within the walls of the thermos.

    • Premises Liability Rivera vs. Cinemark
      Rivera vs. Cinemark $400,000.00

      Client went to the movies and the chair she sat in collapsed, causing compression injuries to her spine. Investigation disclosed the theater chairs were not properly maintained, causing the seat of the chairs to separate.

    • Auto Accident Dhugga vs. Eskel Porter
      Dhugga vs. Eskel Porter Settlement

      A wrongful death action involving a head-on collision on a notoriously dangerous stretch of highway between State Highway 99 in Sacramento and Marysville, commonly known as "blood alley." The case settled prior to trial.

    • Boating Accident Lopez vs. Carthen
      Lopez vs. Carthen Settlement

      A boating accident case. Client was fishing with friends on the Sacramento River and hit by another boat traveling at unsafe and dangerous speeds.

    • Cow in Roadway Cow in Roadway
      Cow in Roadway Settlement

      Client was returning from movies with family on a rural stretch of highway. A cow escaped from its pasture and ran in front of the car, causing client to sustain serious neck injury. Our investigation revealed that the property and cow owner failed to properly maintain fencing and measures to keep his cattle from entering the roadways.


We handle cases on a contingency basis, which means you do not pay us until we win.
  • Please enter your name.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.