Honors and Awards:

• Trial Lawyer/Advocate of the Year, Capitol City Trial Lawyers Association, 2005
• Law Journal Editor, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
• International Moot Court Honors Board
• Recipient of American Jurisprudence Awards
• Numerous Academic Awards & Scholarships
• Presidential Award for Merit, Consumer Attorneys of California
• Trial Lawyer President of the Year

Bar/Professional Activity:

• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1992
• California, 1992
• Board Member, Consumer Attorneys of California
• Arbitrator, Sacramento County
• Mediator, Placer & El Dorado County
• Settlement Conference Judge Pro Tem, Sacramento County
• Member, American Association of Justice
• Past-President, Capitol City Trial Lawyers Association

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

• Frequent Lecturer and Speaker at Attorney Seminars and Conventions
• Frequent Lecturer and Guest Speaker at State and local seminars and conferences.

Verdicts and Settlements:

• $3 MILLION: BICYCLE VS. COMMERCIAL TRUCK COLLISION/BRAIN INJURY Client: George H.; County: Sacramento Attorney John Demas represented George H. in a bicycle accident that occurred in Sacramento County. Our client was riding his bicycle through an intersection, when the driver of a commercial van entered the intersection when it was unsafe and struck him.  The case was litigated aggressively. The commercial van’s insurance company claimed that our client bore some responsibility for the collision, because he was riding on the wrong side of the road and was not wearing a bicycle helmet.  In addition, the case posed significant challenges because our client was homeless at the time of the collision and a long-time drug user.   In California, there is no law requiring adults to wear bicycle helmets. However, defendants in cases involving head injuries and bicyclists often argue that “a reasonable person” would wear a helmet and that wearing a helmet would decrease the extent of injuries suffered.  However, it is the defendant’s burden to prove that the helmet would have made a difference. To counter this defense, we hired a world-renowned expert on helmets and head trauma, an engineer who has even consulted with the NFL to reduce head injuries.  Our expert conclusively proved that even if our client was wearing a helmet, he still would have sustained a significant head injury due to the location of the skull fracture.  The defendants also questioned the nature and extent of our client’s head injury by pointing to his long history of drug use as being the cause of his brain injury. We had our client evaluated by one of the leading head injury doctors in California and we proved he did in fact sustain a traumatic brain injury from the collision and that his ongoing cognitive issues were related to the collision and not his prior drug use.  The case settled shortly before trial after an all-day mediation for $3,000,000--the defendant’s insurance policy limit.   , 2013
• $1,000,000: (Policy limits) "We represented a 79 year old who was stopped at a light and rear-ended by a commercial van. Our client was taken by ambulance to the hospital and had neck surgery. The defense contested the need for the surgery and claimed the surgeon should simply have applied a neck collar. We proved the surgery was reasonable in light of the injuries suffered by hiring the best expert witnesses and the defendants paid their policy limits shortly before trial. "
•   $1.3 Million: Wrongful Death "We represented the parents of a nine-year old girl electrocuted at a local car wash after coming in contact with an ungrounded light pole. The defendant car wash owner claimed he was not negligent because he didn't know the pole was ungrounded and he relied on the electrical contractor to service the car wash. The electrical contractor claimed he hadn't serviced the subject light pole in over two years and when he last serviced it, the pole was properly grounded. In addition, the defendants' attempted to blame the mother of the deceased girl for negligently supervising her by allowing her to walk around the car wash at night. We were able to show that the car wash owner knew the subject light pole was different than the other light poles yet did nothing about it. In addition, we found out that the electrical contractor did not maintain a valid contractors license for many years and the condition of the light pole was such that a reasonable and competent contractor would have seen and repaired it. The case settled shortly before trial."
• $1.4 million: Products Liability "Man had dominant arm degloving injury from a grain auger/conveyor at work, when he placed his arm into the equipment to unclog a jammed item in the line. We sued the product manufacturer and the installer, even though the device was built and installed years ago, with no prior injury history. The defect allegations were for failure to guard and failure to have proper electrical safety mechanisms. We proved the device was defectively built and installed which resulted in a significant settlement for the claimant."
•   $1.5 Million: Wrongful Death "The decedent was on his first week of work as a truck driver when he was struck and killed by another truck in a freeway accident. The decedent had pulled to the shoulder of the freeway and exited his vehicle to adjust his load prior to being struck. The defendant trucking company alleged that decedent was out on the roadway at the time he was hit. We filed suit on behalf of the drivers widow and 2 children and were able to prove that the deceased was lawfully inside the "gore point" of the freeway shoulder when the accident occurred. Defendants settlement offer increased dramatically during jury selection."
• $1.6 Million: Jury Verdict "We represented a tow truck driver called to defendant's house for a jump start. He was injured when defendant helped pushed his vehicle despite being told not to which caused plaintiff to be pinned between the garage door frame and the vehicle. Defendant denied liability and never made a settlement offer. Defendant's attorney indicated that he would win this case "over 90%" of the time. We offered to settle throughout the pendency of the case for less than $500,000. At trial we proved that defendant was responsible and obtained a jury verdict of $1.6 million in a very conservative county."
• Over $4,000,000: Confidential Product Liability Settlement
• $2.5 Million: Jury Verdict In Wrongful Death Case "Mr. Demas recently obtained what is believed to be the largest personal injury verdict ever in Tuolumne County. We represented the heirs of Mr. & Mrs. Hueso who were killed in an auto v. truck collision involving one of the largest employers in Tuolumne County, Diestel Turkey Ranch. Mr. Demas was referred the case only six weeks before trial. The defendants never offered anything to settle the case and were confident of a defense verdict. We were able to prove that the defendants were responsible for causing the collision despite an initial CHP investigation that found our client was responsible."
• $4.5 million Jury Verdict: Auto Accident "We obtained one of the largest jury verdicts ever for a car accident case against Sacramento County. We represented a motorist hit by a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Officer. Our client had a back surgery after the collision and we proved he was unable to work as a result of his back injury. The defense argued he could return to work if he has another back surgery, this time a more complicated and risky procedure called a back fusion. Before trial, defendants offered $1,000,000 to settle. Our last settlement offer was $1,900,000 with an indication we would accept $1,500,000 to settle. At trial we proved our client could not work as a result of the collision and that the decision to not have a fusion surgery was reasonable."

Video:

• Sacramento Accident Attorney, Demas Law Group, Sacramento Accident Attorney, Demas Law Group, Personal Injury, 2012
• John Demas - Abused Teen Lawsuit KOVR CBS13 5pm Sac, CA 02 09 2011 , Personal Injury, 2011
• Insurance companies are in a business to do one thing, and that is to make money. And the way they make money is by collecting as much as possible in the premiums and paying out as little as possible when they have a claim. It's simple economics, the more they collect and the less they pay out, the more money they make. Their only incentive then, when someone makes a claim, is to pay out as little as possible. And the only way to equalize the field and to level the playing field, is to have someone on your side that knows how to obtain fair and equitable compensation for you. Many times insurance companies will often play, especially close in time to the collision, the good guy. Pretend that they're on your side to get you to give them a recorded statement or to get our clients to turn over some valuable documents or evidence to them. And the reason they do this is because they know when the person is not represented they are more likely to get this information than when they are. And the only reason that they do this is to get evidence to hurt the claimant's case., Edit Video Detail Edit annotations Edit captions/subtitles AudioSwap Insight stats Promote Save Changes or cancel SettingsVideo ThumbnailMap Location Share feedback on inline editing CommentsAllow comments automatically Allow friends' comments automa, Personal Injury

Educational Background:

• University of the Pacific, B.A. in Political Science, 1989