Anderson v. State of California Department of Transportation

Personal Injury and Dangerous Conditions

Humboldt County

Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen

Plaintiff’s Lawyers: Russell Reiner, Robert Simpson, Todd Slaughter, Tamara L. Wood, Reiner, Slaughter, McCartney & Frankel LLP

Defense Lawyers: Landa S. Low, Vanessa M. Spear, California Department of Transportation

A Humboldt County jury awarded nearly $56.5 million to a 20-year-old man hit by a car while working at a Caltrans construction project on U.S. 101 in Eureka.

The panel held the California Department of Transportation responsible for the man’s brain injury.

“In the trial, what happened was we alleged that Caltrans created a dangerous condition by denying a lane closure and by ordering the removal of a barrier vehicle that was protecting Kyle Anderson and the other workers,” said plaintiff’s attorney Russell Reiner of Reiner, Slaughter, McCartney & Frankel LLP.

After 11 weeks of testimony before Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen, the jury found that Caltrans was negligent for creating a dangerous condition that resulted in the injury.

“He is aware of what is going on around him but as a result of his brain injury, he is a quadriplegic and he cannot speak or communicate,” Reiner said.

The jury awarded $59.25 million in its verdict. About $2.7 million of that went to Shannon Moore, Anderson’s co-worker who helped resuscitate him shortly after the collision.

Moore sought damages from Caltrans for a post-traumatic stress disorder, medical expenses and loss of income. Moore v. State of California (Department of Transportation), DR120609 (Humboldt Super. Ct., filed Sept. 6, 2012).

Anderson’s award comprises $19.8 million in medical expenses, $1.6 million in lost earnings, $10 million in past noneconomic losses and $25 million in future noneconomic losses.

Caltrans filed an appeal of the jury verdict.

“We requested the appeal be expedited based on the fact that our client Kyle Anderson has many future medical needs,” Reiner said. “There is technology that could help him communicate and that’s why we asked that the appeal be expedited. The appellate court granted our request that the appeal be expedited.”

— Melanie Brisbon