This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury (Vehicular)
Automobile Accident
Head-On Collision

Frank Mara v. David M. Boydston

Published: Mar. 22, 1997 | Result Date: Sep. 4, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: V0088024 –  $0

Judge

George C. Hernandez Jr.

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurence F. Padway
(Law Office of Laurence F. Padway)


Experts

Plaintiff

Walter Christian Jr.
(medical)

David M. Contreras
(medical)

George Booth III
(technical)

Robert Lindskog
(technical)

Kulveen Sachdeva
(medical)

Defendant

Paul Kayfetz
(technical)

F. Richard Schneider
(medical)

Richard N. Stuart
(technical)

Facts

On Nov. 18, 1993, at about 6 a.m., plaintiff Frank Mara, a 50-year-old general manager, was injured when his southbound vehicle was struck head-on by defendant David Boydston's northbound vehicle on Crow Canyon Road in Alameda. The defendant saw the eyes of a deer reflected in his headlights to the right of the roadway coming into his lane, and swerved back, which caused him to lose control of his vehicle and collide with the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on negligence theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $1.8 million. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $100,000.

Specials in Evidence

$40,000+ $80,000 (per year)

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged he suffered from myofascial pain syndrome and a possible herniation at C5-6.

Other Information

The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied. According to the defendant, when the jury advised that a verdict had been reached, the plaintiff said he wanted to accept the $100,000, but the defendant withdrew the offer and took the verdict. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The defendant's expert testified that the plaintiff had no objective findings of any injury that would substantiate his ongoing complaints or his failure to return to work.

Deliberation

___ (hours/days)

Poll

12-0

Length

4 days


#101277

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390