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
Dog Bite
Negligence

Tomas Aquino, County of Los Angeles v. Hector Gonzalez

Published: Sep. 30, 2003 | Result Date: Mar. 28, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: VC035377 Verdict –  $63,000

Judge

Thomas I. McKnew Jr.

Court

L.A. Superior Norwalk


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Rami M. Kayyali


Defendant

Thomas M. Phillips
(Phillips Firm)


Experts

Plaintiff

Ralph N. Steiger
(medical)

Richard H. Andolsen
(technical)

Raymond G. Schultz
(technical)

Defendant

David J. Weiner M.B.A., AM
(technical)

Gene Bruno M.S., C.R.C., C.C.M., C.D.M.S.
(technical)

James T. London M.D.
(medical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Tomas Aquino, a 57-year-old inspector aide, worked for the County of Los Angeles. Part of his job duties required him to enter private property to establish or inspect fruit fly traps. On June 4, 2001, the plaintiff entered the backyard of the defendant's property to inspect a fruit fly trap that had been placed there earlier. At that point, the plaintiff was attacked by the defendant's two Akitas. The plaintiff sued the defendant and alleged causes of action for negligence and strict liability (Civil Code Section 3342 - Dog Bite Statute). The defendant asserted defenses of trespass and assumption of risk.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $350,000. The defendant offered $50,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed that he sustained a left rotator cuff tear and a possible neck herniation. He claimed damages for medical specials and wage loss. The defendant disputed the nature and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries.

Result

The jury returned with a gross verdict of $63,000 (special damages only - no breakdown) which was reduced to $40,950 after the jury found the plaintiff 35 percent comparatively negligent.

Other Information

The plaintiff's counsel reported that the court redacted a portion of the dog bite BAJI instruction, which stated that a person who is on the property pursuant to a duty imposed on him by the law of the State of California is not a trespasser. The plaintiff has filed an appeal.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

10-2 (Aquino was not a trespasser), 12-0 (Aquino was injured), 11-1 (Gonzalez was negligent), $12-0 (Gonzalez's negligence was cause of injury), 11-1 (Aquino was negligent), 9-2 (undecided), Aquino was comparatively negligent), 12-0 (monetary award)

Length

four days


#102551

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

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