Lord v. Renner: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Teen's Beating at Arizona Party

The parents of 16-year-old Preston Lord have filed a wrongful death lawsuit following his fatal beating at a large, unsupervised Halloween party in Queen Creek, Arizona. This case stands out from the criminal cases the young defendants are already facing because the civil suit intends to hold both the young defendants and numerous "parents" legally responsible for the circumstances leading to Preston's death.

Case: Lord v. Renner

Court: Maricopa County Superior Court

Case No.: CV2024-018033

The Plaintiff: Lord v. Renner

The plaintiffs in the case are Preston Lord's parents, Nicholoas Lord and Autumn Curiel. After their son died from injuries sustained at a Helloween party on the night of October 28, 2023, the two filed suit claiming wrongful death. The night of the incident, a fight allegedly broke out, and a severe beating left Preston unconscious. He was rushed to a nearby hospital and then airlifted to Phoenix Children's Hospital. However, he died due to injuries sustained just two days after the incident.

The Defendants in the Case: The Youths and Their Parents

Seven young party attendees are listed as defendants on the wrongful death complaint: Talan Renner, Treston Billey, William Owen Hines, Jacob Meisner, Dominic Turner, Taylor Sherman, and Talyn Vigil. However, the list of defendants does not stop there. In addition to the youths accused of the fatal attack on Preston Lord, some of the parents of the young people are also included on the defendant list. The Renner family and the owners of the property where the party was hosted (Roberto and Emily Corres) are also listed as defendants.

History of the Case: Lord v. Renner

According to the complaint, the Correas hosted a Halloween party promoted on Snapchat as a "Halloween Rager" that was open invite, with alcohol available on a first-come, first-served basis. Up to 200 teens and young adults reportedly attended. The lawsuit alleges the Correas remained inside during the party, were under the influence of alcohol, and failed to supervise the minors or prevent alcohol from being provided to them.

When the homeowners told attendees to leave, a fight broke out between two groups. Preston was allegedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness by the seven named individuals. The lawsuit also cites prior alleged violent behavior by defendant Talan Renner, including a fifth-grade threat to "shoot up" his school, a middle school fight/bullying incident, and an assault at a Utah boarding school. The plaintiffs argue that Renner's parents failed to take reasonable steps to control or supervise their son despite his volatile history.

The Main Question in the Case: Lord v. Renner

Can both the individuals who physically attacked Preston and the parents who allegedly failed to supervise or intervene be held liable under wrongful death and negligence laws? The fatal incident that led to Lord v. Renner occurred in Arizona. However, the issues raised of parental liability, negligent supervision, and social host responsibility are issues that could easily be echoed in wrongful death and negligence claims in other areas throughout the nation.

Why This Case Matters: Lord v. Renner

This case puts a spotlight on the potential civil liability for parents and property owners when minors at unsupervised gatherings where alcohol is present cause harm or injury. The issues presented in this case also underscore how wrongful death and negligence claims can extend beyond the direct perpetrators to those who allowed dangerous conditions to occur. Such cases can result in significant financial judgments intended to provide justice for grieving families.

FAQ: Lord v. Renner

Q: What is a wrongful death lawsuit?

A: A wrongful death lawsuit is a civil claim filed by certain surviving family members when a death is caused by another party's negligence, recklessness, or intentional act.

Q: Can parents be held liable for their child's actions?

A: Yes. In California, as in Arizona, parents may be held civilly responsible if they knew or should have known of their child's dangerous behavior and did not take reasonable actions to stop them from doing harm.

Q: How does social host liability apply?

A: California's social host laws differ from Arizona's, but in both states, providing alcohol to minors — or failing to control a gathering where minors drink — can contribute to civil liability when injuries or deaths occur.

Q: How does a civil wrongful death case differ from a criminal case?

A: A criminal case seeks to punish wrongdoing with penalties such as imprisonment. A civil wrongful death case seeks compensation for losses filed by surviving family members.

Q: What damages can be recovered in wrongful death cases?

A: Compensation can include funeral expenses, medical bills, and other damages related to loss of companionship, loss of future earnings, etc. In some cases, punitive damages may be included, especially for reckless conduct.

If you have lost a loved one due to another party's negligence or wrongful actions, contact an experienced wrongful death attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Claims Big Oil is to Blame for Climate Related Heatwave Death

Misti Leon made a historic move when she filed a wrongful death lawsuit targeting major fossil fuel companies. Leon's complaint alleges that the companies' actions and active climate deception directly contributed to her mother's death during a record-breaking 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Leon's case marks a new frontier in climate accountability litigation.

Case: Misti Leon v. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the BP-managed subsidiary Olympic Pipeline Company

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 25-2-15986-8 SEA

The Plaintiff: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Misti Leon, acting as the personal representative of her mother's estate, filed this wrongful death suit following the 2021 Pacific Northwest "heat dome"—an extreme weather event scientists confirm would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change.

The Defendant: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The lawsuit names seven major fossil fuel companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and BP's Olympic Pipeline Company—alleging that their decades-long contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and public deception about climate risk played a direct role in her mother's fatal hyperthermia.

History of the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Filed on May 29, 2025, in King County Superior Court, the suit is unprecedented—marking the first wrongful death claim in the U.S. directly linking a single death to corporate actions exacerbating the climate crisis. The complaint alleges that the 108 °F heat in Seattle that killed Juliana Leon constituted a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' knowingly deceptive actions.

The Main Question in the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The central legal question is whether these fossil fuel companies can be held civilly liable under state wrongful death, public nuisance, or failure-to-warn claims for creating and hiding the dangers of climate change that caused the fatal heatwave.

FAQ: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Q: Is this the first wrongful death lawsuit connected to climate change?

A: Yes—it is the first known U.S. wrongful death claim against fossil fuel companies directly attributing one individual's death to the industry's climate impact.

Q: What are the plaintiff's main legal claims against the defendants?

A: The plaintiff's main allegations in the case are wrongdul death, public nuisance, and failure to warn. Leon alleges that the companies knew of deadly climate risks, but misled consumers regardig the issues and hindered efforts to mitigate.

Q: Does the case rely on scientific attribution of the heatwave to climate change?

A: Yes. Scientific studies cited in the complaint support the claim that the June 2021 heat dome, which reached record temperatures, would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Addictive Algorithms Caused Their Child's Death: Nazario v. ByteDance

A New York Supreme Court complaint (Index No. 151540/2024) accuses TikTok's parent, ByteDance, and related social-media firms of designing "addictive" features that target minors, promote dangerous challenges, and allegedly caused a boy's death.

The Case: Norma Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd. et al.

The Court: NY Supreme Court

The Case No. 151540/2024

The Plaintiff: Nazario v. ByteDance

Norma Nazario, individually and as representative of her late child Zackery's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit contending that the platforms exploited children's neuro-vulnerabilities, lured Zackery into compulsive use, and pushed self-harm content that led directly to his fatal actions.

The Defendant: Nazario v. ByteDance

According to the complaint, the defendant, ByteDance (and other affiliated social media platforms/apps):

• Optimize apps for "retention" and "time spent," while valuing engagement over safety.

• Actively nudge minors to create content or "go live" with content.

• Algorithmically amplify dangerous challenges while withholding adequate warnings.

The Case: Nazario v. ByteDance

The case was put before the New York Supreme Court and listed multiple allegations:

• Defendants deliberately leverage the neuro-developmental vulnerabilities of minor users to "optimize" time spent and retention results.

• Algorithms pushed the plaintiff's son, Zackery, toward "exceedingly dangerous challenges and videos," which directly caused the child's fatal actions.

• Defendants knew their products were addictive, failed to redesign or provide adequate warnings, and even "co-created" content through prompts, music curation, and "go live" nudges.

The Main Question: Nazario v. ByteDance

Did ByteDance's product designs, recommendation algorithms, and failure to warn or safeguard young users create a defective, deceptively marketed product that caused Zackery's death—and, if so, what liability attaches under New York tort and consumer-protection law?

FAQ: Nazario v. ByteDance

Q: What makes the suit a product liability case rather than simple negligence?

A: The complaint frames TikTok as a consumer product with design defects (addictive features, dangerous content amplification) and inadequate warnings, invoking strict liability principles normally applied to physical goods.

Q: How do deceptive-practice claims (GBL §§ 349 & 350) fit in?

A: Nazario says defendants misrepresented TikTok's safety, luring families to trust a platform allegedly engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of minors' mental and physical health.

Q: What "dangerous challenges" are cited?

A: While specific titles are under seal, the pleading says the For You Page pushed viral stunts encouraging self-harm and risky behavior that Zackery ultimately attempted.

Q: Could Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shield the defendants?

A: Plaintiffs argue the platforms acted as designers and co-creators of content through algorithmic amplification, prompts, and curated music, placing their claims within the product-liability sphere where Section 230 immunity is narrower.

Q: What happens next procedurally?

A: The court will rule on the pending motion (MS #3). If claims survive, discovery will address internal design documents, safety studies, and data on under-18 engagement, potentially informing settlement or trial.

If you need to file a wrongful death lawsuit, and you have questions, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Child's IEP was Ignored Leading to the Student's Death: Estate of Kody Townsend v. CPS

The parents of 10-year-old Kody Townsend have sued the public school system in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025L007034), alleging the school's staff ignored their son's seizure-care plans, left him unsupervised at lunch, and mishandled the resulting medical emergency, causing his death.

Estate of Kody Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court

Case No.: 2025L007034

The Plaintiffs: Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Chicago Public Schools)

The Estate of Kody Townsend, through parents Travis Townsend and Lakeisha Jones-Townsend, seeks damages for wrongful death. Kody had Lennox-Gastaut seizure disorder and developmental delays; his Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Seizure Action Plan required constant adult supervision (especially while eating), and included step-by-step emergency protocols.

The Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendant, Chicago Public Schools, operates Henry R. Clissold Elementary, where Kody was enrolled as a student. The lawsuit contends district employees willfully ignored written medical directives and then failed to provide (or relay to paramedics) the care specified in those directives.

The Case: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The Townsend family listed claims of negligence and wrongful death based on willful and wanton misconduct. They also included more details regarding their key allegations, including:

• Unsupervised Meal: On Oct 18, 2024, Kody ate without the required one-to-one monitor as specified in his IEP, suffered a seizure, choked on food, and went into cardiac arrest.

• 9 Minute Delay: Staff waited about nine minutes before attempting the first seizure-response step; when that failed, they neither advanced to the next step nor called 911 promptly.

• Airway Oversight: Staff failed to inform arriving EMS that Kody's airway was obstructed, resulting in a delay in life-saving care.

• Known Risk: Personnel were fully aware (from the IEP and Seizure Action Plan) of Kody's heightened danger during meals, yet disregarded those documents.

The wrongful death lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and systemic changes to enforce IEP compliance throughout the district.

The Main Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Did Chicago Public Schools act with reckless disregard by ignoring Kody Townsend's documented need for meal-time supervision and by failing to follow or communicate seizure protocols, thereby causing his fatal cardiac arrest?

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What specific protections did Kody's IEP and Seizure Action Plan mandate?

A: Continuous adult supervision during meals, step-wise seizure-response procedures (two distinct interventions), and immediate EMS notification if the first step failed.

Q: How long did the staff wait before taking action?

A: The complaint says approximately nine minutes elapsed before any seizure protocol was attempted, well beyond best-practice response times for airway obstruction and seizures.

Q: Why is failure to tell EMS about the blocked airway significant?

A: Clearing the airway is the first priority in this type of medical emergency. Failing to advise paramedics that an airway is blocked risks wasting critical minutes on ineffective interventions.

Q: The parents claimed "willful and wanton" misconduct; what standard must be met to prove this type of claim?

A: To prove a "willful and wanton" misconduct claim, they must show that the school staff knew about Kody's health risks, and consciously disregarded the information. If the plaintiffs can prove the school staff knew and disregarded Kody's condition/associated health risks, it becomes more than merely an act of negligence.

Q: Could this lawsuit lead to broader policy changes?

A: Yes. Wrongful-death suits often push districts to tighten IEP enforcement, retrain staff on medical plans, and adopt stricter emergency-response protocols.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Family of Allegedly Unsupervised Student Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

The family of a 10-year-old boy with a known seizure disorder has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Chicago Public Schools, claiming his school failed to provide the supervision and medical response his condition required.

Case: Lakesha Monica Jones Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the Chicago Board of Education, and the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County Court

Case no.: 2025L007034

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: About the Plaintiff and the Child

Lakeisha Monica Jones-Townsend, mother of Kody Townsend, filed the wrongful death lawsuit after her son died following a seizure and choking incident at school. Kody was diagnosed with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a rare and severe seizure disorder, along with developmental delays that made him dependent on adult assistance during daily activities, especially eating. Kody had both an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and a seizure action plan, which specified that he must be supervised by a paraprofessional at all times and receive prompt intervention during seizures. The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

Learn More About the Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendants in the lawsuit, Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the Chicago Board of Education, and the City of Chicago, are allegedly the entities that are collectively responsible for the operation of Clissold Elementary School, where Kody was enrolled. The plaintiff argues that the public school system is legally responsible for properly implementing medical and education plans for students in their care (like Kody).

What Allegedly Happened:

According to the lawsuit, on October 18, 2024, while Kody was eating lunch at school, he suffered a seizure and began choking on food. The paraprofessional assigned to supervise him was allegedly not present, in violation of his IEP and care plan. The school also failed to notify a nurse or initiate either of the two seizure treatments included in his medical plan. Paramedics arrived nine minutes later, unaware that food was obstructing Kody's airway. It wasn't until Kody reached the hospital that doctors discovered the obstruction, but tragically, it was too late to save him.

Key Legal Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The key legal issue is whether Chicago Public Schools breached its duty of care when they allegedly failed to provide the required supervision and proper medical intervention for Kody, their student with a documented seizure disorder. The court also has to consider whether that failure directly caused Kody's death. The finding in the case will hinge on whether the school's inaction constituted negligence that resulted in the wrongful death of their student, Kody.

Legal and Educational Implications: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

This case raises urgent questions about how public schools implement and monitor special education and medical care plans, especially for students with life-threatening conditions. A ruling in favor of the family could lead to stricter enforcement of IEPs and more robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that schools fulfill all obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and relevant state laws. It also has the potential to set a precedent on institutional responsibility in cases where noncompliance results in the death of a student.

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: Did the Defendant Respond?

As of now, Chicago Public Schools has not filed a formal response in court. However, a district spokesperson issued a statement saying:

"Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is committed to the safety and well-being of our students. The district does not provide comments on ongoing litigation."

Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools: Will This Case Make a Difference?

This case is a powerful and heartbreaking reminder of what's at stake when schools fail to follow legally mandated care plans for vulnerable students. It highlights systemic gaps in oversight, training, and emergency response, particularly for students with disabilities. As Kody's mother stated, "No parent should send their child to school in the morning and not be able to welcome them home in the afternoon." The case speaks to a broader need for reform in how public schools support students with complex medical needs.

What Comes Next for Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Filed on May 30, 2025, in Cook County Circuit Court under Case No. 2025L007034, the lawsuit is now in the early litigation stages. The defendants are expected to file a response, after which the court may set discovery deadlines and schedule hearings. At this time, no trial date has been announced, but the case is being closely watched by disability rights advocates, education professionals, and families with medically fragile children.

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What medical condition did Kody have?

A: Kody had Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a serious seizure disorder, along with developmental delays that required constant supervision and medical readiness during the school day.

Q: What was the school's legal obligation?

A: The school was legally required to provide a dedicated aide to supervise Kody at all times and to follow his IEP and seizure action plan, including emergency response/protocols.

Q: Why is the school being sued for wrongful death?

A: The family alleges that school staff failed to supervise Kody or respond to his seizure promptly and that this negligence led to his death (after the initial choking incident).

Q: Has CPS acknowledged fault?

A: No. CPS did not admit liability, and they do not comment on pending litigation.

Q: Could this case lead to changes in how schools support students with special needs?

A: Potentially, yes. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, it may prompt school systems to strengthen their compliance with IEPs and emergency care standards—especially for students with high-risk medical conditions.

Do you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Seeking Justice After a Public Transit Accident: The Stout's Charter Bus Lawsuit

In a groundbreaking lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Burlington County, a guardian ad litem has stepped forward on behalf of an injured minor, alleging that Stout's Charter Bus and others failed to maintain safe operating conditions, resulting in severe traumatic injuries.

The Case: Denise Steele, Guardian Ad Litem of Russel Steele, Jr. v. Stout's Charter Bus, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

The Case No.: BUR-L-001407-18

Guardian Ad Litem Claims Negligence Caused Traumatic Injuries

Representing the interests of her minor ward, Denise Steele claims that due to negligence on the part of Stout's Charter Bus and its associates, Russel Steele, Jr. sustained traumatic injuries from an accident involving a public transit vehicle. The plaintiff contends that inadequate safety measures and maintenance lapses contributed directly to the accident and the subsequent harm suffered by the injured minor.

Defendants Accused of Failing to Uphold Safety Standards

Stout's Charter Bus and other named defendants are accused of failing to uphold minimum safety standards. The defendants are alleged to have neglected critical maintenance protocols and operational procedures, leading to an accident that caused significant physical trauma and emotional distress for the injured child and his family.

Lawsuit Following Public Transit Accident Resulting in Traumatic Injury

After a public transit accident involving Stout's Charter Bus resulted in the traumatic injury of Russel Steele, Jr., Steele’s guardian ad litem filed a lawsuit. The complaint points out a lack of adherence to safety regulations and proper maintenance that allegedly resulted in the incident. According to the plaintiffs, regular maintenance and proper safety measures could have prevented the accident. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the extensive injuries and hardships caused by the incident for the minor and his family.

What Should You Do if You're Injured in a Public Transit Accident?

If you or a loved one suffers traumatic injuries from a public transit accident, you should:

Seek Immediate Medical Care: Ensure you receive proper medical treatment as quickly as possible. Document both injuries and treatments.

Document the Incident: Record detailed notes, take photographs, and gather witness information about the accident.

Preserve All Records: Retain copies of medical reports, treatment bills, and any communications with the transit company or public transit group.

Contact a Lawyer: Contact a qualified, experienced traumatic injury attorney to discuss your legal options and potential compensation claims.

If you have questions about filing a traumatic injury claim, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable traumatic injury attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Electrocution Injury Jury Verdict: $4.8M Award for Traumatic Brain Injuries from Unchecked Power Lines

In a groundbreaking verdict, a jury awarded nearly $4.8 million in damages to Heydi Velez and others who suffered traumatic brain injuries after an unchecked power line from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) caused a devastating electrocution incident.

The Case: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

The Court: Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County

The Case No.: 17-022854-CA-21

The Plaintiff: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

Heydi Velez and her co-plaintiffs, who experienced severe injuries including traumatic brain injury, PTSD, migraines, panic attacks, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, claim that FPL’s negligence led to an avoidable electrocution accident. The plaintiffs allege that a faulty, unchecked power line resulted in a dangerous situation where a 57-year-old individual was electrocuted while leaning on a metal fence in contact with water, ultimately causing extensive long-term health issues.

Did FPL's Power Line Maintenance Policies Create an Unsafe Environment?

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) policies and preventive measures regarding power line maintenance are at the heart of the litigation. The plaintiffs allege that FPL failed to maintain a safe electrical infrastructure and that the failure led directly to the incident. Allegedly, FPL's oversight created a dangerous environment and failed to protect its own workers and customers.

Jury Verdict Following a Rigorous Trial with Multiple Experts & Extensive Evidence

Following a rigorous trial featuring multiple expert testimonies and extensive evidence, the jury delivered a verdict awarding $4,847,000 in damages. This decision is expected to serve as a critical precedent, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to safety regulations and the severe consequences of neglect by utility companies. The appeal process is underway at the Third District Court of Appeal under Case No. 3D22-181, as FPL seeks to challenge the ruling.

What Can You Do If You Suffer from Traumatic Injuries Due to Negligence?

If you or a loved one has suffered traumatic injuries caused by negligent maintenance or unsafe conditions, it is important to document your experience, gather evidence, and seek expert legal advice as soon as possible.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful death lawsuit or traumatic brain injury claim, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.