Kirkwood v. General Motors; product liability
"This wasn't supposed to happen to me," says Madras, Oregon, resident Anne Kirkwood. "This was supposed to happen to somebody else."

The "this" that Kirkwood refers to was a fiery explosion that changed her life. On August 11, 1994, she was driving on a highway near Madras when her car collided with a 1976 GM pickup truck with sidesaddle gas tanks. Upon collision, the tanks exploded and Kirkwood's vehicle was engulfed in flames. Her granddaughter, seated next to her, was killed by the fire and her granddaughter's half-brother, in the back seat, suffered severe burns.

Kirkwood herself was burned beyond recognition — her face was burned away and she lost her nose. In places, the fire burned down to her skull. She lost her right leg below the knee and lost sight in her left eye. Kirkwood spent an enormous amount of time in the hospital and suffered through numerous operations. Since the accident she estimates she has been through over 30 surgical procedures, mostly to rebuild her face with skin grafts.

At the time of the collision, the sidesaddle gas tanks were a known defect in the design of certain years of GM trucks. An effort was underway to recall the trucks. They had been estimated to have burned or killed hundreds of people nationally.

Because the defective GM truck was 18 years old when the incident occurred, Kirkwood could not claim damages against the Detroit manufacturer. Oregon law contains a statute of ultimate repose, which bars claims against manufacturers of defective products if the product in question is more than eight years old. These laws are unusual and Oregon's is the third most restrictive of all the 18 states that even have such a law. To be able to hold General Motors accountable, Kirkwood had to change the state law.

When Lawrence Baron began his solo practice in 1995, Anne Kirkwood was one of his first clients. Her fight against GM became his first major case in his own firm. Kirkwood is thankful she hired Baron because of his determination to pursue her case. "There wasn't a time I didn't feel absolutely confident in Larry," she says. "I put all my trust in him. I would trust him with anything in my life."

Baron worked wth lobbyist Brad Higbee at the legislature to change the law. Kirkwood's daughter, Annette, took charge to rally the family's church and community. She raised funds to hire the lobbyist in a story that might be compared to David against Goliath. Ultimately, an amendment to the statute of repose made its way through the legislature. The amendment specifically excepted "sidesaddle gas tanks" from the restrictive Oregon law.

GM hired 18 lawyers to fight the case, but finally settled on January 10, 1997, 10 days before the trial was to begin. Details of the settlement are confidential. For his efforts, Baron was recognized as 1997 National Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. In presenting the award, the organization said Baron took on a case that virtually no one else would have pursued. Baron acknowledged the efforts of the many individuals who assisted him, not only Kirkwood and her family but also his co-counsel, Paul Whelan and Mike Withey.

Through it all, the lobbying and the trial preparation, Baron worked his way into Anne Kirkwood's heart. "All the way through," she recalls, "there wasn't a time when I didn't feel confident in Larry. He was so energetic and so personally concerned for my welfare. Outside of being my lawyer, I think of him as another son. We invite him to all our family reunions."

Kirkwood still has to endure her painful injuries. Through it all, however, she maintains a positive spirit. One judge commented about Anne Kirkwood that "you could go to heaven by hanging onto her skirt."

Ross v. Teplick, medical malpractice
Brenda Ross sought out lasik surgery so she wouldn't have to wear contacts any more. She enjoyed swimming and water sports with her family. Without contact lenses in her eyes, she felt she could be more physically active with her family and enjoy life more.

Unfortunately, Ross's surgery went tragically wrong. A medical device was not properly assembled and it cut deeply into her eye. She suffered permanent damage and distortion of vision. To make matters worse, she learned that she never was a good candidate for surgery in the first place and her physician failed to tell her.

Following her surgery, she began to look for a lawyer to hold her doctor accountable. She and her husband settled on Lawrence Baron and Greg Zeuthen because of the compassion they demonstrated for her situation. Ross was also impressed that Baron had gone to the legislature to change a law so Anne Kirkwood could have her case move forward. "That told me a lot," said Ross. "That showed me Larry was the kind of attorney who would do everything possible for a client."

From the start, she knew she had chosen correctly. "Larry and Greg never left me out of the loop. I was in communication with them just about every day. They answered every one of my emails. The way they treated me throughout the process was awesome." Her case settled out of court in April 2002 in a confidential agreement. Her bond with her attorneys, though, has not lessened. "I feel that I made two new friends for life. We still communicate with Larry and Greg by email and phone on a semi-regular basis. I think the world of them."

Ross is a home school teacher to her four children, ages 2 to 14. Her impaired eyesight makes teaching her children extremely difficult but she finds a way to cope each day. Her oldest daughter recently enrolled in college level courses. Aside from her family, Ross is extremely involved in support efforts for victims of lasik and laser eye surgery. She started a group for Oregon and Washington called simply, "Refractive Surgery Complications Support Group." She also participates regularly in a national web site for former lasik patients, "surgicaleyes.org." When she comes across someone who needs legal help, she never hesitates to refer them to Larry Baron and Greg Zeuthen.

Morin v. Weston, medical malpractice
Leo Morin, of Veneta, Oregon, wanted lighter glasses — glasses that weighed less. His prescription made his lenses big and heavy. Because he worked as an industrial electrician, his eye glasses doubled as safety glasses. They had to be actually made out of glass and not a lighter plastic material.

Lasik surgery seemed to be the answer. He had surgery on both eyes on June 15, 2000. In the days following surgery, he began to realize something wasn't right. His left eye, in particular, was worse. At eye exams, when he was asked to look at the eye chart on the wall, he couldn't make out any letters, even the big "E" at the top.

He learned he had not been a good candidate for lasik surgery. The combination of his pupil size and the refraction of his eye meant he would have problems. He also learned that the doctors literally plugged the wrong refraction into the computer.

"The idea of suing someone was foreign to me," Morin says. "I don't think of myself as a confrontational type person." Yet, as he considered his situation and conversed more with other victims or lasik surgery, legal action became a real option. He made contact with Lawrence Baron and Greg Zeuthen.

"Larry and Greg reminded me of Gary Cooper in High Noon," recalls Morin. "Larry was so intense. And he knew the language... you could tell he knew a lot about lasik surgery. I thought, 'These are the guys.'"

The case went before a Lane County Circuit Court jury in Eugene on April 9, 2002. On April 11, the jury came back with a verdict against the doctor and awarded Morin $420,000 in damages.

"He didn't eat the day before the trial," Morin says of Baron's intensity. "He went after my case with all his heart and all his soul. We have a saying at work, 'when you're up to your a__ in alligators.' Well, when you're up to your a__, Larry is a guy you want by your side. I was thankful to have him as my attorney."

Today, Morin struggles with his eyesight. He suffers from "dry eyes." The dry eyes make his eyes feel like he's in a hot, dusty, desert wind. He relies mostly on his right eye for vision as his left eye produces what he describes as "a dozen double images." In artificial light, Morin says he sees about 40 percent of what he could see prior to his surgery.

Dilio v. Jang; medical malpractice
Lori Dilio was attracted to lasik surgery because it presented an opportunity to get rid of her glasses. She enjoyed physical activities — skiing and swimming — where glasses were an inconvenience. Advertising by a Canadian lasik clinic convinced her the surgery would be a positive move. She went to a clinic near her Bellevue, Washington, home for her pre-surgery exam. Doctors there declared her an excellent candidate.

Dilio traveled to Surrey, British Columbia, for her operation and surgery was performed on February 11, 2000. She immediately realized she had decreased vision and could not focus her eyes. "I couldn't really see," she says. "I had double vision. I saw halos and starbursts around light. And everything was dimmer. It was blurry."

Fearing for her future, Dilio sought legal counsel. "I didn't want to look back someday and think there was something else I could have done," she says. "I wanted to hold the doctors accountable. I wanted to say to the doctors, 'This is what you've done to me. This is what your lousy follow-up has come to.'"

Dilio hired Baron and Greg Zeuthen. "They were tenacious," Dilio says of her attorneys. "They were unstoppable in their research — they wanted to learn everything about my situation, about my condition. There was no stone left unturned. Every idea was pursued. They looked everywhere for answers."

The evidence gathered by Baron demonstrated clearly the mistakes made by Dilio's doctors. There were many: mismeasured pupils, a decentered flap, decentered ablations and a failure to remove straie (or wrinkles).

The trial began in November 2002 at the Justice Center in Kent, Washington. Arguments had proceeded for two weeks and Baron had nearly completed his presentation of the Dilio case when the case settled.

Dilio left the courtroom with a lasting appreciation for the work put in by her attorneys, "My husband and I were both impressed with the time Larry and Greg invested in our case. They work hard for every penny they make."

Reaching a settlement gave Dilio the closure she needed to move on with her life. Prior to the operation, she successfully operated a small wedding cake business out of her home. Today, she and her husband Michael operate real estate appraisal business from their home. She also home schools her three children.

Swanson v. Nissan; product liability
Portland, Oregon, resident Norma Brainerd (then Swanson) purchased a 1994 Nissan Altima specifically because it featured a passenger side air bag. She felt that feature would help make her and her children safer. At the time, there had been little in the news about air bags posing a risk.

In December 1995 — just three nights before Christmas — Brainerd was the passenger in her Altima when the driver misjudged a turn and ran over an eight inch curb. The impact was minor, but the vehicle's air bags deployed and Brainerd was forcefully struck in the face. She was properly seat-belted and had her seat halfway back in the seat track. The air bag broke her nose, gave her a concussion and left her blind for six weeks. She regained the sight in her right eye but is legally blind in her left.

Following the accident, Brainerd began looking for an attorney to hold Nissan accountable for her injuries. "It wasn't just for me. I wanted to get those cars off the road." A friend led her to Larry Baron. "I was impressed with his determination," she says. "He really did a good job all the way to court. He dug into it and kept unearthing more and more cases where the same thing had happened to other people."

In his research for the case, Baron found evidence that the Altima's air bag had been designed to strike the occupant while still inflating. It flew out at the occupant at a speed of 159 miles per hour. All this was contrary to a basic premise of air bag design — that a bag be fully inflated before the occupant falls into it.

Baron discovered over 20 other women and children who had sustained serious eye injuries in accidents involving 1994 and 1995 Nissan Altimas. He also learned that while the driver side air bag had tethers, the passenger side did not. Tethers are straps inside the bag that prevent it from traveling too far back into the vehicle. He learned statistically that air bags were not needed in low impact collisions.

In November 1998, Brainerd's case proceeded to a jury trial in US District Court in Portland. "As we got close to the trial date, I was really scared," Brainerd recalls. "But Larry demonstrated this quiet determination. He helped me get through with his sense of assuredness and confidence." The trial began but on the third day the case settled.

She remained frustrated the cars were still on the road and other people stood a chance of getting hurt. In August 2002, Brainerd and her husband traveled to Washington, DC to participate in a Public Citizen news conference calling for the recall of 1994 and 1995 Altimas. "In the years since my accident, numerous other people have been injured by this same air bag," she told reporters. "Nissan remains aware of the defective product but has done nothing to recall and replace it. How many defective air bags will unexpectedly take the precious vision of other innocent victims before Nissan recalls this air bag?"

On that day, Warsome was riding in a 1994 Nissan Altima and traveling from his home in Falls Church VA to Washington DC. He was headed to the bus station to visit his daughter in Minnesota. The driver, one of his sons, was attempting a sudden lane change when the car struck a traffic barrier. It wasn't much of a crash — the Altima didn't even need a tow, it was still drivable. However, the impact caused the passenger side air bag to inflate. The air bag struck Warsome's face with such force that his left eye had to be removed. Surgeons were unable to restore the vision in his right eye because – according to his medical records – "the retina was completely shredded." Ali Warsome lost his eyesight because of the impact of the air bag.

"I cannot see the sky anymore," the 74-year-old immigrant told a reporter. "I cannot cook, I cannot walk, I cannot help my grandchildren.... I don't know what to do."

Warsome's Washington DC attorney, John F. Kennedy, brought Larry Baron in as co-counsel because of Baron's experience prosecuting the Altima air bag cases. Baron and Kennedy documented the defective operation of the airbag. They noted how at least 40 other individuals — riding as passengers in Altimas — had been blinded or otherwise suffered damage to their eyes as a result of the force with which the air bag strikes a passenger's face. Eventually Nissan agreed to an undisclosed settlement with Warsome.

In his own way, Warsome supported the April 2003 recall of the airbags in the 1994 and 1995 Nissan Altimas. He was featured in a Los Angeles Times newspaper article documenting the product defect just months prior to the recall. This was one of many pressure points applied to Nissan that eventually led to the car company’s decision to replace the air bags.

Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant, negligence
In February 1993, Gary Fulmer went to the Timber Inn Restaurant and Lounge in Coos Bay, Oregon, for a social evening with his family. He was drinking in the lounge, on the second level of the restaurant building. The only way to leave the lounge is to walk down a flight of stairs. When Fulmer got up to leave the lounge, he fell down the stairs — causing a severe brain injury. During the course of the evening, the restaurant operators served Fulmer substantial amounts of alcohol — even though Fulmer was visible intoxicated. Baron represented Fulmer in a lawsuit against the restaurant, charging that the restaurant was negligent by continuing to serve alcohol to an intoxicated individual in violation of state law.

Conventional legal wisdom at the time dictated that a drinking establishment could not be sued for injuries suffered by a customer who had been served too much alcohol. However, Baron believed the reasoning that led to that line of thinking was faulty. The Coos County Circuit Court refused the lawsuit, stating that Fulmer had no cause for action. Baron persevered and appealed his client's case to the Oregon Court of Appeals and then to the Oregon Supreme Court. He convinced the Supreme Court justices that a bar could be held responsible for its actions in serving alcohol to an already intoxicated customer. In July 2000, the Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the lawsuit had cause to go forward. The ruling essentially changed state law on the responsbilities of alcohol servers and allowed Baron to negotiate a settlement for his client. See 330 Or. 413, 9 P.3d 710 (2000), Oregon Supreme Court opinion

Whitley v. Southern Pacific Railroad; Federal Employers Liability Act
Gregory Whitley was awarded $163,000 by a jury for injuries sustained while working for Southern Pacific and stepping off a ladder affixed to a railroad car. Mixed in with crush rock that formed the bedding for the track was a large boulder that Whitley stepped on, and causing his ankle to twist. Southern Pacific blamed Whitley for his injury and fined him for a three-month period. Baron's research showed that Southern Pacific, rather than Whitley, was liable for the injury because of a regulation that favorably protected railroad workers and required crush rock in work surfaces to be no greater than one inch in diameter. The case set national precedent when the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with Baron. See 902 P2d 1196, Oregon Court of Appeals opinion