Robert Mahan v. Donald Gallette, et al.
Published: Dec. 13, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 21, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: LC033903 – $26,200
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Van Nuys
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Joseph V. Macha
(Foley & Mansfield)
Experts
Plaintiff
In-Kook Chung
(medical)
Defendant
Mark O. Winter
(technical)
Jerome Covin
(medical)
Facts
On Oct. 5, 1994, at 6:30 a.m., plaintiff Robert Mahan, a 37-year-old, was a passenger in a car driven by defendant Donald Gallette heading eastbound on Roscoe Street. Defendant William Cook, in the course and scope of his employment, was westbound on Roscoe in the No. 3 lane. Lanes one and two were backed up. Defendant Cook had the green light. Defendant Gallette made a left turn across Roscoe and in front of Cook who coming through the intersection. The speed of impact was approximately 25 to 30 mph. The plaintiff brought this action against defendants based on a negligence theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff reported he made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $75,000 at the mediation and $130,000 to the jury. (According to defendants, plaintiff's C.C.P. º998 demand was for $125,000.) Defendant Gallette made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $20,000 and defendant Cook made no offer. Plaintiff reported that defendant Gallette withdrew his offer on the first day of trial and plaintiff lowered his demand to $50,000.
Specials in Evidence
$17,500 $10,000
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and two months after the case was filed. A mediation was held on April 25, 1997, before James Bianchi of Meyers, Bianchi & McConnell. It did not resolve the matter. Plaintiff plans to appeal. Plaintiff reported that the judge, over plaintiff's objection, allowed jurors to write questions which the judge then asked of each witness. There were over 13 questions asked. For example, a Kaiser employee was asked whether plaintiff would have to reimburse Kaiser for his medical bills if he failed to obtain a judgment. According to plaintiff, the judge said the jury needed to know the information about the medical bills, despite the collateral source rule, or they might be confused. In addition, plaintiff reported that the judge allowed hearsay statements in evidence based on his belief that the jury should know all the facts, and he made certain facial and hand gestures during plaintiff's closing argument. Plaintiff made motions for mistrial which were denied. Plaintiff also reported that defendant's expert witness, John Perry, did not have a Ph.D. in biomechanics as he testified at his deposition. Plaintiff subpeonaed Perry's records from the University of Southern California which showed that Perry had a Ph.D. in physical education. According to plaintiff, the parties then stipulated that defendant would not call Perry in plaintiff's case if defendant would not call an accident witness who heard plaintiff say, at the scene of the accident, "We can make a lot of money off this accident. I'm going to get a lawyer." Both defendants testified that plaintiff asked them about settlement at the scene of the accident. Per plaintiff, the jurors did not believe plaintiff about his shoulder injury which accounted for $14,000 of the medical specials. (Plaintiff worked out with weights and defendant attributed the shoulder condition to weight lifting.)
Deliberation
6+ hours
Poll
12-0 (liability), 12-0 (causation), 10-2 (damages)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390