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
Auto v. Truck
FasTrak Lane Accident

Armando Cervantes v. Ronny W. Sono

Published: Feb. 12, 2011 | Result Date: Jan. 20, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG09484889 Verdict –  $50,000

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Nick J. Casper


Defendant

Fulvio A. Picerno


Experts

Plaintiff

Toby Gloekler
(technical)

Defendant

Rajeev Kelkar Ph.D.
(technical)

Facts

On Oct. 14, 2008, at 12 p.m., plaintiff Armando Cervantes, a 44-year-old hardwood flooring employee, was making a lumber delivery in a company Ford F-250 truck, from Richmond to Sonoma. While approaching the Richmond-San Rafael bridge on Interstate 580, plaintiff collided with defendant's vehicle in the toll plaza where the FasTrak lane split from one to two lanes.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that he was driving in the number one lane FasTrak lane, with defendant driving behind him. He claimed that as the FasTrak lane widened and began to split into two FasTrak lanes at the bridge toll plaza, defendant attempted to pass plaintiff's truck and establish himself in front of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's maneuver resulted in the two vehicles colliding.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that he was driving in the number one FasTrak lane, and plaintiff was driving in the number 2 lane to the right. Defendant alleged that plaintiff crossed the solid white line separating the lanes and merged into defendant's vehicle in the FasTrak lane near the toll plaza.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $50,000 (policy limits). Defendant's insurance carrier made no offer. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that if defendant was found negligent, insurance carrier would pay policy limits. Accordingly, there was no evidence of damages introduced.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff, finding defendant 90 percent at fault. The jury only found on the issue of fault, and the $50,000 was paid pursuant to the stipulation during settlement discussions.

Poll

12-0 (defendant's negligence), 10-2 (fault apportionment)

Length

three days


#104396

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

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