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 (Non-Vehicular)
Premises Liability
Negligence

Robert Bryant v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company

Published: Jan. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Oct. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: L025917 –  $0

Judge

Luis M. Villarreal

Court

Solano Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Anthony S. Petru
(Hildebrand, McLeod & Nelson LLP)


Defendant

John D. Feeney
(Union Pacific Railroad Co.)


Experts

Plaintiff

Ronald L. Johnson
(technical)

Carolyn Ormand
(technical)

Gary Graham
(technical)

Robert E. Hitson
(technical)

David A. Thompson
(JAMS) (technical)

Defendant

Gary Hessler
(technical)

Facts

On Dec. 22, 1990, plaintiff Robert Bryant, a 22-year-old automobile unloader, was injured during the course and scope of his employment with the cross-defendant (settled) at a railroad facility operated by defendant/cross-complainant Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The cross-defendant was an independent contractor retained by Southern Pacific to drive new automobiles off of double-and-triple-decked railroad cars and park them in a large lot adjacent to the tracks. On Dec. 12, 1990, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Bryant slipped from the wet, slippery rungs of a ladder affixed to the side of the tri-level railroad car he was atttempting to climb, and fell approximately 9 feet to the ground, landing stiff-legged and injuring his lower back. The plaintiff brought this action against Southern Pacific Transportation based on tort and industrial injury theories of recovery. Southern Pacific cross-complained against the plaintiff's employer for indemntiy.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $274,500. The defendant and cross-defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $150,000. ($75,000 from each defendant). The cross-defendant also offered to buy the plaintiff-in-intervention lien for $25,000.

Specials in Evidence

$200,000 $45,000 combined totaling $50,000 (net of temporary and permanent disability recovery from the plaintiff-in-intervention)

Damages

The plaintiff claimed special damages in the amount of $300,000 plus compensation for general (non-economic) damages in the range of "$1 to $2 million."

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that as a result of his injuries, he underwent two surgeries, a failed laminotomy/discectomy at L4-5 in April 1991, and a bi-level fusion (with internal fixation hardware) from L5-S1 to L4-5 in March 1993. The plaintiff also alleged that although the second surgery was successful in the sense that it made it possible for the plaintiff to resume his vocational rehabilitation and to return to the work place (as a computer technician), he still experiences chronic, severe low-back, neck and arm pain and related fatigue. The plaintiff further alleged that there was a significant chance that the internal hardware installed during the fusion surgery may need to be removed at some future time.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately five years and seven months after the case was filed. Several settlement conferences were held, but did not resolve the matter. No appeal was taken by the plaintiff, in return for a cost waiver. No appeal was taken by the intervenor, in return for a negotiated reduction of the defendant's cost bill. Southern Pacific's cross-complaint was ordered to arbitration and arbitrated in 1995; the result was inconclusive and the cross-complaint was ordered back to trial by the arbitrator for a determination of the nature of Southern Pacific's negligence, if any. In light of the defense verdict, the cross-complaint was settled. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert, David Thompson, stated that hi-topped, waffle-soled work boots were proper footwear for climbing the subject ladders, and soft-bottomed shoes (like the plaintiff's Reeboks) were not. Plaintiff's experts, Robert Hitson and David Thompson, also testified that Southern Pacific required its own employees to wear safety boots while working around trains, and should likewise have permitted the plaintiff to do so. Defense expert, Gary Hessler, testified that the plaintiff's Reeboks were fine.

Deliberation

4 hours

Poll

9-3

Length

16 days


#105910

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

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