Facts

On May 1, 2011 at 3 p.m., plaintiff Gordon Welliver II, 14, was at the home of defendants Dale and Lisa Hoberg visiting with their son, Kevin Hoberg, 15. Kevin was handling an Airsoft rifle when it discharged and struck Gordon in his right eye.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Prior to being shot, Gordon sat in a chair in defendants' garage with Kevin seated in another chair across from him. Kevin had been shooting an Airsoft Rifle at a box on his driveway. Kevin removed the magazine from the rifle and claimed to have discharged the remainder of the pellets into the grass area near him. Kevin also claimed that he placed the rifle safety on. However, when he moved the rifle, a pellet accidentally fired and struck Gordon in his right eye. Gordon immediately fell off his chair. He grabbed at his right eye and cried out in terrible pain. The local police department responded to the scene of the incident.

Kevin's father, Dale Hoberg, purchased the Airsoft Rifle at issue in this incident for his son, Kevin. Furthermore, Kevin's mother, Lisa Hoberg was home at the time of the incident but left her son unsupervised. Defendants observed their son's behavior, habits, and tendencies with the weapon at issue on previous occasions and therefore knew that leaving him unsupervised with a weapon created an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Plaintiff claimed that as an additional insured under his parents' homeowners' insurance policy, Kevin was negligent for handling an Airsoft rifle carelessly and recklessly, leading to an unintended discharge that severely damaged plaintiff's eye. Plaintiff contended that Kevin's parents were also liable for injuries caused by their child where the parents' negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury complained of and made it probable that it would do so. Under a theory of Parental Liability pursuant to CACI 410, plaintiff claimed he was entitled to damages for the injuries suffered in this incident.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants disputed both liability and the severity of plaintiff's injuries.

Specials in Evidence

Paid medical reimbursements totaled approximately $8,413. $20,000

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed right eye trauma, traumatic cataract, and iridodialysis, requiring phaceomulsification with intraocular lens implant and iridodialysis repair, and scar on lower eyelid. Plaintiff also had YAG laser capsulotomy of right eye. Plaintiff's claimed future injuries included the need to wear glasses for near vision work along with lifelong optometric follow-up care once every two to three years for monitoring prescriptive changes. To a reasonable degree of medical probability, plaintiff's treating ophthalmologic surgeon also opined that plaintiff would suffer from glaucoma in the future secondary to the incident. Glaucoma treatment would require lifelong medication or surgery. Surgery was the preferable treatment option should glaucoma develop at a young age.

Result

The case settled for $175,000.