Use the links below to see some of our notable cases and highlights. You'll also find a list of some of our top judgements on our homepage here.


US $5 million settlement reached with driver, tavern and corporate defendants implicated in violent border crash (Kwan v. Lagerwey)

BC accident victims obtain US $9.1 million verdict in WA courts against ICBC insured driver (Tepei v. Uniroyal)

Confidential settlement under US law for motor vehicle collision that occurred in Canada (Brooks/Ishikawa v. Cytodyne/Campagna)

Only in America - The $101,000 Hat Case

Kwan v. Lagerwey, et. al

US $5 million settlement reached with driver, tavern and corporate defendants implicated in violent border crash

In May of 2004, Mr. Kwan and three other members of his family were seriously injured when their vehicle was struck from behind while stopped at a U.S. Customs outbound checkpoint only meters south of the U.S.-Canada border near Blaine, Washington. Mr. Kwan sustained injury to his brain and spinal cord along with multiple fractures. After a week in a coma, he awoke to learn that he sustained permanent partial paralysis as a result of the collision.

None of the three defendants wanted to take responsibility for the results of this accident. The driver who caused the crash was traveling at 120 km/h and had a blood alcohol reading three times the legal limit in Washington state. He claimed that he was intoxicated not by alcohol, but by ether -- which he claimed was leaking from tanks in the rear of his company's van. The tavern where the driver had been drinking that evening insisted the driver hadn't been "overserved" - while the company who owned the van claimed that the driver wasn't really working for them at the precise moment the crash took place..despite the fact that they had sent him up from Portland to deliver company products to customers in Whatcom County.

Cross Border Law engaged in an aggressive and multi-faceted strategy to maximize the recovery Mr. Kwan and his family members were entitled to obtain. We attended the driver's criminal trial in Bellingham to learn what we could about the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the basis for the DWI charge. We retained a multi-disciplinary team of medical experts to evaluate Mr. Kwan's condition, prognosis for recovery, and the extent of his future care needs. We conducted a session of juror "focus groups" in Bellingham with a nationally-renowned trial consulting firm to better understand how a Whatcom County jury would evaluate the issues presented. Finally, we devoted over 200 hours to legal research addressing issues of Oregon and Washington law implicated by our clients' case.

In December, 2005, the clients reached a settlement with the three defendants involved in the case - the driver of the van that struck Mr. Kwan's vehicle, the company that owned the van, and the tavern where the driver was drinking in the hours before the crash. The settlement ensured that Mr. Kwan will have the financial resources to meet his ongoing care needs in the years to come.

Tepei v. Uniroyal

BC accident victims obtain US $9.1 million verdict in WA courts against ICBC insured driver.

In October of 1996, seven members of a Port Coquitlam family were injured in a single-car collision when their vehicle suffered a tire blowout near Chehalis, Washington on Interstate 5. The Tepei vehicle flipped over the concrete median of the highway and landed upside down in the southbound lanes of traffic. Four members of the family were ejected and suffered serious injuries which will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Initial investigation suggested that driver error and a defect in the manufacture of the vehicle's tires likely contributed to the collision. Cross Border Law worked with over 30 treating doctors, expert medical witnesses and tire design experts in developing both the liability and damages case on behalf of the Tepei family. We retained experts from both the United States and Canada to develop the relationship between the accident and our clients' injuries, and to assist in illustrating the limitations which their injuries had caused in their everyday lives. We also brought in a tire manufacturing and design expert from the United Kingdom to establish that a simple modification to the internal design of the tires on the Tepei vehicle would have prevented the blowout and the resulting accident from taking place.

The manufacturer of the tires made significant efforts to have the Tepei's lawsuit dismissed to British Columbia, or tried in accord with British Columbia legal principles. Application of British Columbia law would have made it harder for the Tepeis to prove liability on the part of the tire maker, and would have reduced the amount of compensation the family could obtain. We turned back every attempt made by the manufacturer to minimize our clients' recovery, and proceeded to trial in Washington State. Lawyers can read about the procedural history of the case in the June 2004 issue of the TLABC Verdict, reproduced on the Resources page of our website under "Publications".

After a seven-week trial in Lewis County, Washington, the jury returned a verdict in favour of the Tepeis for over US $9.1 million. The verdict is believed to be the largest damages award ever entered against an ICBC insured driver, and is the first Lewis County verdict ever awarded in excess of US $1 million.

Brooks/Ishikawa v. Cytodyne/Campagna

Confidential settlement under US law for motor vehicle collision that occurred in Canada.

In May of 1998, two young women were killed and six other people injured in a fiery collision near the Canadian Customs checkpoint at the Peace Arch border crossing. The at-fault driver, who was speeding in excess of 160 kph when she struck a line of cars waiting to clear customs, attributed her reckless driving to a psychotic episode brought on by her use of an ephedra-based diet supplement she had purchased in the United States.

Cross Border Law assisted the families of the two young girls and the surviving victims of this tragic accident in the presentation of a lawsuit in Washington state against the manufacturer, designer, distributor and marketers of the diet supplement, as well as against the driver of the automobile. As in the Tepei case referenced above, the defendants argued vigorously to have our clients' case dismissed to British Columbia or tried under British Columbia law - a result which would have significantly diminished the plaintiffs' right to compensation. Despite the fact that the accident itself occurred north of the US-Canadian border, we were successful in convincing a Washington court to retain the case for trial under Washington law. Shortly after the defendants' last appeal on this issue was unsuccessful, the case was settled for a confidential sum.

Only in America - The Hat Case

One other case, which always bears retelling, is that of Mr. Samuels' very first client, Barbara Hughes, a widow who sued a funeral home for stealing a hat. When Mr. Hughes died, his wife gave explicit instructions that he was to be buried in the clothes he was married in: western boots, belt, buckle and hat, and he was dressed that way during the open-casket ceremony. Unfortunately, the hat (which had to be cut in the back to make it fit) didn't quite make it to the grave. Mrs. Hughes was shocked to see someone else wearing it after the funeral.

After accusing the funeral home of grave-robbing, Mrs. Hughes contacted no less than ten lawyers, all of whom refused to take her case. Mr. Samuels (#11) sued the funeral home, alleging "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress" and breach of the funeral contract. The funeral home refused settlement for $3,000 and the return of the hat, forcing the case to trial.

Arguing that funerals are more for the survivors than the deceased, Mr. Samuels asked the jurors to consider how they'd feel if this case had involved a child's funeral, and had the item removed from the casket been a favourite teddy bear. The Cowlitz County, Washington jury returned a verdict of $101,449.50.

*These are excellent results. No trial results can ever be guaranteed, as the outcome of any litigation and/or the amount recovered will vary according to the facts presented by individual cases. Past successes are not necessarily determinative of future results.

Top of Page