Facts

On April 12, 2008, plaintiff Thomas W. Avery, a 38-year-old C4-5 spastic quadriplegic contacted the City of Roseville's dial-a-ride bus service to pick him up and take him to a location in the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville dispatched MV Public Transportation Inc. to plaintiff and also made arrangements for MV Public Transportation to pick up plaintiff from the same location where they were dropping him off.

At 3:30 p.m., MV Public Transportation operator, John Ford, came to the designated location to pick up plaintiff. He stopped his bus at a location where the road was sloped. He lowered the Ricon K-series wheelchair lift and when plaintiff had difficulty loading himself onto the wheelchair lift in reverse, Ford directed him to pull on forward contrary to the recommended loading position. Ford then elevated plaintiff on the wheelchair lift after connecting the safety restraint belt. This safety restraint belt has an interlock system such that the wheelchair lift will not operate unless the belt is engaged. Once the wheelchair lift got to the bus level, approximately four feet up in the air, Ford directed plaintiff to enter onto the bus.

It is plaintiff's belief that Ford had to have disconnected the safety restraint belt at that point in time, thereby eliminating the safety provided by that belt system. Plaintiff inadvertently moved his wheelchair in reverse such that it went backwards and came in contact with a roll barrier on the back of the lift, which Ricon designed to comply with federal regulations as to withstand 1600 pounds of force. The roll barrier failed and plaintiff went back off the lift and struck the asphalt below with his head and right shoulder.

Defendant MV Public Transportation Inc. was the contracted operator of the transit system for the City of Roseville.

City of Roseville is the principality in Placer County that was responsible for the public transit system and had contracted with MV Public Transportation.

Ricon Corporation was the manufacturer of the K-series wheelchair lift.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the roll barrier failed as a combination of the City of Roseville's negligence in its maintenance of the subject roll barrier and based upon Ford's negligent conduct in failing to inspect the roll barrier as he was obligated to do before putting it to use. Had he inspected it, he would have seen that the roll barrier was missing a bolt assembly on the right-hand side and that the bolt assembly on the left-hand side was loose, thereby severely compromising the safety system.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
MV Public Transportation contended that the safety belt system was defective in that it produced a "false latch." It also contended that an operator could allegedly put the latch plate in the buckle and engage the interlock system, but not have it fully latched and thereby provide the protection afforded by the safety restraint belt.

MV Public Transportation further contended that Ricon was aware of this defect and had been put on notice prior to the subject incident by other users of the subject Ricon lift. MV Public Transportation was allowed to introduce evidence of a recall for a safety restraint belt system that Ricon had in place, even though it was not the same subject belt buckle system. MV Public Transportation took the position at trial that their operator was properly trained.

MV Public Transportation maintained that the incident happened due to the false latch of the seatbelt restraint system and plaintiff's comparative negligence in putting his wheelchair in reverse. It claimed that the wheelchair actually climbed over the roll barrier and went off the back solely as a result of the failure of the belt, not the failure of the roll barrier system.

The City of Roseville contended that it had properly maintained the subject wheelchair lift. The city's mechanics had replaced the roll barrier in February, some six to eight weeks before the incident, and also had an opportunity to inspect it in March to determine whether the subject bolts and nuts were still tight and fastened. The city took the position that it did not inspect and that it was not its fault that the bolt fell out, but rather that of MV Public Transportation.

Ricon Corporation contended that there was no false latch of the belt and that the operator either improperly connected the belt in front of plaintiff, or disconnected the belt once he got plaintiff up to bus level and had to disconnect it in order to allow him to enter onto the bus. Ricon claimed that there was no defect in the belt that the recall was for a belt buckle system that had the interlock system changed by the manufacturer of the buckle in 2007, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject belt, which was manufactured and sold in 2003.

Ricon also claimed that the sole cause of the incident was the MV Public Transportation operator's failure to properly inspect the wheelchair lift before putting it in use and failed to properly utilize the safety belt restraint system. Had he properly inspected it, he would have seen the missing bolt and the compromised roll barrier. Had he properly used the safety restraint belt, this incident would never have happened. Ricon took the position that the failure of both safety devices was a result of MV Public Transportation operator's conduct.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff filed statutory demands against MV Public Transportation in the amount of $1.4 million, and against the City of Roseville in the amount of $600,000 in June 2010. MV Public Transportation offered $500,000 in mediation. There were no further settlement negotiations until the third week of trial, when MV Public Transportation increased its offer to $750,000. MV Public Transportation then withdrew that offer as soon as the matter went to the jury, indicating that they no longer wanted to engage in settlement negotiations, but would rather leave it in the hands of the jury. Ricon Corp., as a cross-defendant, served a CCP 998 offer on cross-complainant MV Public Transportation in the amount of $50,001, and also served a CCP 998 offer on cross-complainant the City of Roseville in the amount of $10,001. Thus, Ricon Corp. will seek to recover its costs from MV and the City for failing to prevail upon their cross-complaints against Ricon Corp.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered a basal skull fracture and global brain injury, including bilateral frontal lobe bleeding, parietal lobe bleeding, and bilateral temporal lobe bleeding. He also suffered a dislocation of his right shoulder that essentially went undiagnosed and untreated. As a result of the head injury, he required follow up medical care, including rehabilitation and cognitive therapy. Plaintiff claimed that he had increased spasms as a result of his injury. He claimed that his use of Baclofen, which had been prescribed before, had been increased, as well as his use of Vicodin. The medical records indicated that he was at the maximum level of Baclofen when it would work, and his Vicodin use was similar to what it had been prior to the incident. Plaintiff claimed he needed a Baclofen pump, increased quality of occupational care, and additional care that would allow him to get out into public.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $6,396,697. The jury found MV Public Transportation was 83% at fault and the City of Roseville was 17 percent at fault. Ricon Corp. was found not liable. The judgment entered by the Court on Oct. 22, 2010 includes Ricon's right to recover costs pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs.

Deliberation

five hours

Poll

12-0

Length

20 days