Craig S. Barnes is an active trial lawyer, with experience in tort and business litigation cases. Mr. Barnes practices in the areas of complex business litigation, toxic torts, products liability and general liability. He is also the managing partner of Sedgwick’s Los Angeles office.
Litigation Matters
Mr. Barnes has tried over 20 cases involving toxic torts, commercial disputes, products liability, premises liability. He also represents national and international corporations in products liability and toxic tort claims. Mr. Barnes has also served as Western Regional Coordinating Litigation Counsel for a major big box retailer. Defense verdicts on behalf of his clients include a 12-0 defense verdict from a Compton, California jury in a case brought by a wheelchair-bound plaintiff who sought damages of $1.7 million and a 12-0 defense verdict by a San Luis Obispo jury on a major injury claim where plaintiff demanded $6 million before trial.
A representative list of some of Mr. Barnes’ trials include:
Lee v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death and personal injury based on defendant’s alleged intentional and negligent acts related to discharging a semiautomatic rifle at decedent and his compatriot during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. The case was initially tried before a jury that was released by the judge due to plaintiffs’ failure to timely post jury fees. The case then proceeded as a bench trial. A writ was granted by the Court of Appeal and the court trial was terminated. Thereafter, the case was retried before a jury. After defendant’s opening statement, where it was shown the physical evidence revealed the wrongful death plaintiff’s son initiated the gun battle and had discharged numerous rounds at the defendants, the plaintiffs agreed to accept $200,000 to settle the entire case. Before trial, the wrongful death plaintiffs had demanded $4,000,000 and the plaintiff claiming personal injury damages demanded $1 million. The $200,000 settlement resolved the claims of all the plaintiffs. The $200,000 offer was made before the first trial.
Paula Hall v. National Home Improvement Retailer (12-0 Verdict)
Plaintiff, an insulin-dependent diabetic, claimed she was seriously injured by a dangerous condition on defendant’s premises. As a result of the incident, plaintiff claimed that she would likely require amputation of part of her left leg. Defendant argued that a reasonably careful person with plaintiff’s disabilities, i.e., diabetic retinopathy (loss of vision) and diabetic neuropathy (loss of sensation), would have been more careful under the circumstances. The liability and damages phases were bifurcated. Plaintiff demanded $6 million before trial, and indicated that, if the case proceeded to the damages phase, she would request that the jury return a $10 million verdict. The jury returned a 12-0 verdict for the defense the day after closing arguments.
Oscar Humphrey v. National Home Improvement Retailer (12-0 Verdict)
Plaintiff claimed he was injured by a dangerous condition on defendant’s premises. The case was tried on theories of general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff argued that, as a result of the incident, he suffered severe back injuries and would never be able to walk again. Plaintiff sat through the entire trial in a wheelchair. Plaintiff demanded $1.7 million before trial. After only 1/2 hour of deliberation, the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict.
Camizzi v. International Paint Suppliers
We represented a major paint manufacturer that supplied the aerospace industry during the time of plaintiff’s employment as an aircraft painter. Plaintiff alleged that he developed AML type leukemia from his exposure to paints, solvents and related products during his 11 months working at McDonnell Douglas. Our client was allegedly the largest paint supplier to plaintiff’s employer during the relevant timeframe.
Before trial, plaintiffs collected more than $1.9 million from the other defendants. Plaintiffs demanded $4 million from our client before trial began. During the trial, we were able to effectively attack plaintiff on the medical causation issues and raise the plaintiff’s comparative fault in his handling of the products in issue. As a result, plaintiffs’ counsel reduced his $4 million and the case resolved for a relatively small amount, well below the amount the client offered at the mediation.
Emily Hetrick v. King Hong (11-1 Verdict)
Plaintiff alleged that she suffered brain damage when she fell back in a chair and struck her head on a cement surface. She claimed the chair was defectively designed, manufactured and negligently maintained. Plaintiff asked the jury to award $22.5 million. The jury returned an 11-1 defense verdict in favor of our client on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove that the maintenance of the chair caused her accident.
Richard Gutierrez v. National Retailer
Plaintiff alleged he suffered a torn meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament when several fence panels, weighing more than 120 pounds, fell on his leg. Plaintiff’s two teenage daughters also sued for emotional distress related to the serious injuries suffered by their 5-year-old sister, who suffered multiple fractures of her leg. Plaintiffs demanded in excess of $500,000 before trial began.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the manner in which the fence panels were arranged constituted a dangerous condition. After plaintiff’s safety expert and orthopedist were discredited on cross-examination during plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the plaintiffs decided to accept $25,000 to settle the entire action brought by Richard Gutierrez and his two daughters.
Lady Wautausa Je v. Hollywood Entertainment District (12-0 Verdict)
Plaintiff sued for intentional interference with economic advantage and Business & Professions Code violations arising from her arrest and detention by security officers retained by the Hollywood Entertainment District. Plaintiff was engaged in selling celebrity photographs on the street, in violation of a local ordinance. Plaintiff alleged that her three-hour detention and the physical and psychological abuse she allegedly suffered was done with the intention of driving her out of business. A 12-0 defense verdict was obtained on behalf of the client.
CTSI v. MWD (12-0 Verdict)
In a case where Sedgwick represented the plaintiff/cross-defendant, plaintiff alleged defendant municipal water district breached a $1.2 million contract for the distribution of toilets throughout Southern California. The defendant cross-complained for $1.2 million in alleged overpayments and retained inventory. Although there was no written contract, as required for all government contracts, we were able establish that signed letters from defendant were sufficient writings to give rise to a contract. The jury returned a 12-0 verdict for the client for breach of contract.
Activities and Accomplishments
- Mr. Barnes is a member of the American Bar Association and the Defense Research Institute. Mr. Barnes is also a member of the John Langston Bar Association, the National Bar Association and the California Association of Black Lawyers.
- Selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2011 edition of Best Lawyers in America in the field of product liability litigation.
- Selected Super Lawyer in Business Litigation in 2008 and 2009
- Member of the Firm’s Management Committee 2005 – 2010
- Chair of the Firm’s Diversity Committee 2004 – 2010
- Chair of the Firm’s Leadership Development Committee 2009 - 2010
- Member of the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluations Committee 2008 – 2010
- Member of the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Diversity in the Profession Committee 2000 – 2010
- Member of the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the California State Bar
- Planning Committee Member of the DRI Diversity in the Profession Section 2009 – 2010
- Program Committee Co-Chair for the California Minority Counsel Program 2010
- Served as a judge pro tem for the Los Angeles Superior Court