Civil litigation defense attorney for Oregon churches and religious schools - Kaempf Law Firm

Defense of Catastrophic Personal Injury Lawsuits for Insurers

For 28 years, John Kaempf has defended high exposure personal injury lawsuits for insurers in Oregon’s state and federal trial courts. He has tried over 20 cases to verdict. His extensive jury trial experience greatly helps his insurance clients because lawyers for Oregon plaintiffs know that John will take a case to trial if a plaintiff takes an unreasonable position. In Walden v. Burger King Corp. (Clackamas County Circuit Court 2003), the jury returned a defense verdict in a case where the plaintiff was critically injured on the defendant’s premises, finding that the defendant was not negligent. In Walters v. Ciffone, (Multnomah County Circuit Court 2000), the jury returned a defense verdict in a case where the plaintiff fell on the defendant’s premises and suffered catastrophic injuries. The jury accepted John’s argument that the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault, which barred her claim. In Thompson v. Lupes, (District of Oregon Federal Court 2002), the jury found the defendant was not negligent in a commercial trucking accident where the plaintiff was severely injured. In Estate of Ibarra v. Lilly, 245 Or App 294 (2011), a negligence action, the jury did not award the plaintiffs any pain and suffering damages. On appeal, John got the Oregon Court of Appeals to affirm the defense verdict.

Also, John has succeeded in getting many high exposure personal injury cases dismissed before trial through summary judgment motions. In Stewart v. Kralman, 240 Or App 510 (2011), a personal injury case where the plaintiff was paralyzed while snowmobiling on the defendant’s property, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment John obtained in the trial court based on Oregon’s recreational purposes immunity statutes. In Andrews v. R.W. Hays Co., 166 Or App 494 (2000), the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment John obtained in the trial court for the defendant in a premises liability action where the plaintiff was severely injured. The court held that the defendant was not negligent as a matter of law, as John argued. In Cook v. Philip Morris Inc., 44 Fed Appx 762 (9th Circuit 2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment John obtained in the District of Oregon federal trial court based on the statute of limitations in a personal injury case where the plaintiff was blinded after a cigarette lighter exploded.