Facts

On Aug. 30, 2006, plaintiff Herber Salinas worked as a crew supervisor for Titan Roofing Company. Although a supervisor, plaintiff worked with his crew. Days prior to the accident, Titan assigned plaintiff and his crew to re-roof a commercial building with a capsheet roof in the City of Corona. The job included applying water based cold emulsion roofing material with a high pressure spray gun over layers of webmesh material to the roof. Joey Holman is a sales person for Western Colloid SC Inc., the supplier of the cold emulsion roofing material to Titan.

The day before the accident, Holman came to the job site with Titan's permission, to instruct plaintiff to use a new spray gun. The new spray gun allegedly had a bigger or wider nozzle that supposedly sprayed more emulsion with greater accuracy and would allow Titan to complete roofing work faster. The new spray gun had two valves on it. Holman gave the new spray gun to plaintiff and instructed him regarding its use.

The new spray gun did not initially fit onto the high pressure hose, as it needed an adaptor. As such, Holman told plaintiff that he would go to Home Depot and purchase an adaptor, would install the adaptor to the new spray gun and the high pressure hose, and that it would be ready to use the next morning.

On the morning of Aug. 30, plaintiff arrived at the job site where he found the new spray gun Holman had showed him the day before with an adaptor that allowed plaintiff to attach the spray gun to the hose. Plaintiff contended that he removed the old spray gun from the hose and attached the new spray gun that Holman provided and securely tightened the fittings with two wrenches, as was his custom and practice before starting work. Plaintiff wore protective clothing and protective eye wear provided to him by Titan. Plaintiff next instructed a co-worker to start the compressor to pump the emulsion so that plaintiff could begin applying the roofing emulsion.

As per Holman's instruction, plaintiff opened one valve and was about to open the second valve, when suddenly and without warning, emulsion sprayed onto plaintiff under extremely high pressure (approximately 1,225 psi) impacting his left arm, left side of face, his left eyelid and left eye. The extreme force of the pressurized emulsion caused it to be forcibly injected into his skin of his left arm, the skin on his face, his left eyelid and into his left eye.

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging negligence and products liability, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The defense filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages, which was granted.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendants failed to provide any adequate warnings or instructions on the safe use of the spray bar. Instead, they provided plaintiff with an untested, unsafe and defective apparatus. After the accident, Western Colloid instructed its agent, co-defendant, Holman, on the day of the accident to return to the accident location and recover the defective spray bar, and all of its parts (including the spray tip, the two levers, and the coupling adaptor).

Holman admitted he took the defective spray bar and independent witnesses saw Holman running and/or sneaking away from the job site quickly with the defective spray bar, and all of its parts (including the spray tip, the two levers, and the coupling adaptor). Defendants subsequently "lost" the spray tip, the two levers, and the coupling adaptor and/or by replacing the defective spray bar involved in the accident with a different spray bar.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants conceded negligence in providing a defective spray bar. Defendants contended, however, that plaintiff's injuries could have been avoided completely had he worn a protective face mask.

Defendants disputed that Holman engaged in any "cover up" or spoliation of evidence. Defendants also disputed plaintiff's future wage loss claims as conjecture and disputed plaintiff's traumatic brain injury claim.

Settlement Discussions

According to defense counsel: Plaintiff initially demanded more than $5 million; the defense offered $500,000.

Specials in Evidence

$334,887 According to plaintiff's counsel: Plaintiff sought $50,000 in future medical costs. According to defense counsel: Plaintiff sought $281,280 in future medical costs; the defense argued plaintiff was entitled to $50,000.

Injuries

Plaintiff received debilitating injuries as a consequence of the roofing emulsion being injected into the skin of his left arm, left side of his face, his left eyelid and into the orbit of his left eye. He reported that he could not see out his left eye. At UC Irvine, he was admitted to the burn unit where he first underwent washing and debridement to remove the tar from his body, removing approximately 50 percent of the tar. Most of his skin was intact, with the exception of the left cheek and a laceration to the lateral side of the left eye, which at the time remained unsutured. He underwent five reconstructive surgeries to treat his injuries. According to defense counsel, plaintiff claimed to have suffered from ongoing headaches, nerve damage, permanent facial scarring from embedded emulsion, and partial disfigurement from eyelid bulging and drooping.

Result

The case settled for $916,551.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 30, 2008.