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. Pedestrian
Negligence

Geeta Bhadauria v. Luxor Cab Company, Ammar A. Alahanshali, and Does 1 through 100

Published: Oct. 11, 2014 | Result Date: Jun. 26, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CGC-11-514969 Verdict –  $3,200,000

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Quinton B. Cutlip
(Cutlip Law Office)

Christopher B. Dolan
(Dolan Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Stephen L. Dahm

Dennis F. Moriarty


Experts

Plaintiff

Charles Filanosky Ph.D.
(medical)

Mark T. D'Esposito
(medical)

Michael Moskowitz
(medical)

Dieter Bruno
(medical)

Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)

Carol R. Hyland M.A.
(medical)

Defendant

John Wachtel
(medical)

John Zeitz
(medical)

David C. Bradshaw M.D.
(medical)

Peter C. Cassini M.D.
(medical)

Carla H. Kelley M.R.C., C.R.C.
(technical)

William D. Hooker
(medical)

C. Arthur Sciaroni
(medical)

Dr. Andrew J. Pienkny
(medical)

Facts

On Oct. 13, 2009, plaintiff Geeta Bhadauria, 30, was walking in a crosswalk at Hyde St. at the intersection with Clay St. in San Francisco, when she was struck by a taxicab driven by Ammar Alhanshali. Plaintiff filed suit against Alhanshali, and his employer Luxor Cab Co.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the Alhanshali was, at the time of the collision, in the course of scope of his employment with defendant Luxor Cab Co. and Does 51 to 60. According to defendants' testimony, the taxicab was traveling 8 to 10 mph when it struck plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed she went up onto the hood and then came off onto the ground when the cab braked.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants admitted liability for the collision, but denied that the collision caused all of plaintiff's continuing injuries.

Settlement Discussions

In February 2013, plaintiff made a CCP 009 demand for $1 million (policy limits). Defendants did not respond to the demand. Defendants' last offer before trial was $350,000, increased to $600,000 during trial.

Specials in Evidence

$152,003 $199,332 $550,000 $205,776

Injuries

At the scene, plaintiff complained of severe pain in her tailbone, left toot, neck, shoulder, and back. CT scans, MRI scans, and x-rays were negative, for the most part, but she claimed she continued to suffer a lot of pain. She received medical treatment and was ultimately diagnosed with chronic pain disorders. Plaintiff claimed that her injuries have caused her to leave her professional position, withdraw from her social circles, gain significant weight, and cease all exercise. Plaintiff claimed she has difficulty walking on anything but a flat surface, and that she has pain in her pelvis, shoulder, back, and leg. Plaintiff also claimed she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff contended that prior to the collision, she was socially active and physically fit, having run a half marathon shortly before the collision. Defendants claimed that since the CT scans, MRI scans, and x-rays were negative, plaintiff only suffered soft tissue injuries that healed in six to eight weeks. Defendants argued that plaintiff had received pre-accident treatments for a broken ankle and physical therapy and massages for runners knee and other running related injuries. Defendants also claimed that plaintiff's current pain was at least partially caused by a personality trait and by events other than the accident that causes her to experience psychological upset in the form of physical pain. According to defense, plaintiff also claimed mild traumatic brain injury causing continuing cognitive problems.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $3.2 million.

Other Information

Plaintiff was awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $447,123 pursuant to CCP 998 and Civil Code section 3291. Pursuant to CCP 998, plaintiff was also awarded costs, including expert costs, in the amount of $237,944. Defendants' Motion for New Trial was denied. Defendant has filed an appeal. FILING DATE: Oct. 11, 2011.

Deliberation

eight hours

Length

14 days


#108126

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

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