About Grant Boston

Grant P. Boston is a partner at Hamilton Wingo who focuses on catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, including 18-wheeler accidents, dangerous premises injuries, and workplace claims. He has experience across civil, criminal, state, and federal courts and is described by the firm as a relentless protector of his clients who never backs down from a righteous fight. Boston was a key member of the Hamilton Wingo trial team in the 2022 Goff v. Charter Communications case, in which a Dallas jury returned a multibillion-dollar wrongful death award that stood as the largest verdict in the United States that year. He is regularly ranked among the top personal injury attorneys in Texas and nationally, has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch, and received Lawdragon recognition in 2026. He earned his J.D. from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law and a B.A. cum laude from Abilene Christian University.

Proven verdicts and settlements at Hamilton Wingo, LLP

These results are credited to Hamilton Wingo, LLP. A result appears under an attorney's own name only when a published source names them as counsel on the case.

A Dallas jury found Charter Communications liable for the December 2019 murder of 83-year-old customer Betty Jo McClain Thomas by Roy Holden Jr., a Spectrum field technician who had serviced her home the day before, and for forging her signature on an arbitration agreement after her death. The jury awarded $375 million in actual damages and $7 billion in punitive damages. The family then remitted the punitive award down to twice the compensatory damages, in line with the due-process ratio limits the U.S. Supreme Court set in State Farm v. Campbell, and the trial court entered judgment for $1.147 billion. The family later agreed to a further remittitur to $262 million rather than keep defending the larger figure on appeal. Charter then settled confidentially for less than that, funded by its liability insurance, while its appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals was still pending, and the appeal was dismissed at Charter's own request.

County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas · 2022Wrongful DeathRead the full story →
$6 millionVerdict

A Tarrant County jury found Walmart 80 percent at fault, including gross negligence, after a Walmart employee backed a customer's vehicle into Carl Chojnicki at a Walmart Auto Care Center in North Richland Hills, Texas, breaking his femur. On April 25, 2024, the jury awarded him $6 million: $1.482 million in compensatory damages and $4.518 million in exemplary damages. Walmart appealed, and while the appeal was pending the parties settled; the Fort Worth Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's judgment by agreement in October 2024, so no public dollar figure from the case legally stands today.

67th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas (Fort Worth); appealed to the Second Court of Appeals of Texas · 2024Premises LiabilityRead the full story →

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.

Practice areas

Education

Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
J.D.
Abilene Christian University
Undergraduate

Bar admissions & credentials

State Bar of Texas

Other attorneys at Hamilton Wingo, LLP

View firm →

Proven verdicts and settlements from other Dallas firms

Aldous Law
Aldous Law
$268.6 million · Jury Awards $268 Million After Medical City Gave a 13-Year-Old Girl a Fatal Propofol Overdose
Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP
Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP
$966 Million Talc Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson for a Mesothelioma Death, Punitive Award Vacated
Turley Law Firm
Turley Law Firm
$119.6 million · Dallas Jury Awards $119.6 Million Against Catholic Diocese for Decades of Clergy Abuse and Cover-Up
Loncar Lyon Jenkins
Loncar Lyon Jenkins
$296 Million Verdict Against Koch Industries for Butane Pipeline Deaths in Kaufman County
Lyons & Simmons, LLP
Lyons & Simmons, LLP
$360.01 million · $860 Million Verdict in Dallas Crane Collapse Death, Entered as $360 Million Judgment After Exemplary Cap

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.