Proctor v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Published: Apr. 15, 2003 | Result Date: Mar. 12, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 314877 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Steve Andrew
(technical)
Robert G. Liptai
(technical)
Facts
On Sep. 9, 1999, the plaintiff Clarice Procter, an elderly Oakland resident, caught a long coat or skirt in the space between the step and balustrade of an ascending escalator at the Powell Street BARTD station, and hit her right hip against the balustrade. She did not fall down. She claimed the impact with the balustrade caused her to fracture her right hip. The plaintiff was taken to UC Medical Center by ambulance. ER personnel thought that she probably did not have a fracture, and none was revealed on x-ray. She was nonetheless admitted. A few days later, she submitted to an MRI examination. The film was interpreted as revealing a non-displaced fracture. On Sep. 14, she had total hip replacement surgery. The surgeon testified she had a non-displaced fracture caused by the incident. After her discharge from UC, she was admitted to a skilled nursing facility, and then released to the care of her son, with whom she lived for 8-9 months after her accident.
Settlement Discussions
The case was arbitrated with an award of $175,000, a figure higher than that being requested by the plaintiff. After a request for trial de novo, the defendant offered to settle for $25,000 which was the net amount of plaintiff's medical lien. The plaintiff's final pre-trial demand was $65,000.
Injuries
The plaintiff underwent total hip replacement surgery. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not fractured her hip, that a result of a pre-existing problem with severe degenerative arthritis, hip replacement surgery had been recommended to her before the accident, and that the surgery was performed to correct the pre-existing problem. The plaintiff's surgeon admitted on cross-examination that he did not, during the surgery, ever see a fracture. Yet he testified that she did fracture her hip and that BART incident caused the fracture. The defendant's medical expert testified that, given the nature of the surgical procedure, there was no way he could have missed it, if, in fact, the plaintiff's hip had been fractured.
Other Information
Juror's indicated that since BART was not required to install skirt deflection devices, and since they had installed 19 on some escalators, they met BART's common duties to meet the highest standard of care.
Poll
11-1
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390