$3,000,000 settlement – Paraplegia Resulting from ATM Shooting (Indiana)

ATMs are considered crime magnets by those in the security and banking fields. There’s a good reason: that’s where criminals go to steal cash. Because of that, there are standards banks and retail establishments must meet in order to make ATM banking safe.  As the study of criminology has evolved, the financial institutions have become aware of the need for threat assessments and strategic evaluation of the locations and deployment of their ATMs.

John Elliott Leighton litigated this inadequate security case in Indianapolis, Indiana on behalf of a 25-year-old man left paralyzed when he was shot at an ATM. Through litigation, Leighton demonstrated that the financial institution ignored hazards to its customers.  The facility was in a high crime area that changed complexion at night, becoming frequented by drug dealers and others who present a risk of harm.  It had considered but rejected suggestions to install a drive-thru ATM for use at night.

When our client was using the ATM to deposit his paycheck, he was approached at gunpoint.  When he was unable to withdraw funds, he was shot. The bullet struck his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed.

The criminal was apprehended and sentenced to a maximum security prison, where Mr. Leighton took his deposition.  He claimed that he was under the influence of drugs and did not know the nature of what he did, but his actions before, during and after the robbery showed otherwise.

Mr. Leighton obtained a $3,000,000 settlement prior to trial, affording our client financial security for the rest of his life. (J.G. v. Financial Institution).

 

Disclaimer: The information about past verdicts and settlements of the firm’s cases are based on the unique facts of each case. These amounts reflect the gross recovery in each case (before attorneys fees, expenses and medical costs are deducted). Although these results were obtained by our firm, they may not indicate the success or value of any other case. By clicking on Verdicts and Settlements you are acknowledging that each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own merits. The information contained here has not been reviewed or approved by The Florida Bar.