Facts

On Oct. 15, 2008, plaintiff Rong Dong Li entered a restroom while detained at a detention center in El Centro. In the detention center's recreation room, plaintiff discovered an altercation between two other detainees. Li alerted a guard, who broke up the fight. That guard removed those two detainees from the restroom. Li alleged that while he was still in the restroom, one of the two detainees, defendant John Doe One, returned with another detainee, defendant John Doe Two, and the three men were involved in an altercation.

Li was under the authority and control of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. Defendant Akal Security Inc., was under contract with the U.S. Government to provide security at the El Centro facility at the time.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended Akal Security had a duty to protect Li from foreseeable violence and that Akal Security negligently breached this duty by allegedly releasing the detainees back into the general population immediately rather than segregating them as required under the contract. Plaintiff also contended that he suffered vision loss by indirect traumatic optic neuropathy, and that it was directly and proximately caused by the incident.

Plaintiff's initial complaint included counts for assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and racial and national origin discrimination. After three amendments to the complaint, several motions to dismiss, and a summary judgment motion, plaintiff's sole remaining claim against defendant was a single count of negligence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Akal Security contended that it was not liable for any harm incurred by plaintiff. Akal contended that plaintiff could not show that an agent of Akal Security Inc. was negligent under the circumstances because John Doe One and John Doe Two's acts were responsible for the alleged harm. Akal contended that the type of harm that occurred was not foreseeable as the detainees who allegedly assaulted plaintiff were wearing gray uniforms indicating that they were nonviolent detainees, and that Akal was not vicariously liable for the allegedly negligent acts of an unidentified security guard.

Akal further contended that plaintiff's vision loss was caused by chronic end-stage glaucoma, and not as a result of the incident.

Injuries

Plaintiff was immediately taken to the emergency room. While there, plaintiff reported that he could not see out of his right eye.

Result

The jury unanimously found that Akal Security was not negligent in any manner or in any degree.

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert contended that plaintiff suffered vision loss by indirect traumatic optic neuropathy. A blow to the left side of the face or head region caused damage to plaintiff's right eye, which resulted in loss of vision, and that it was directly and proximately caused by the incident. Defendant's expert testified that vision loss by indirect traumatic optic neuropathy was virtually impossible based upon the medical record and medical examinations. Defendant's expert further testified that plaintiff's loss of vision was likely due to severe end stage chronic glaucoma in both eyes, and the incident likely did not cause his vision loss. FILING DATE: Oct. 13, 2010.

Deliberation

five hours

Length

three days