Gant Silva v. SCM Group USA Inc., Louis & Company
Published: Jan. 25, 2005 | Result Date: Apr. 23, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GIC807497 Verdict – $80,851
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Steven L. Victor
(Steven L. Victor, Attorney at Law APC)
Defendant
Craig T. Mann
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
Facts
The plaintiff was a 32-year-old shop foreman who suffered a traumatic amputation of four fingers (right dominant hand) while working on a wood shaper distributed by defendant SCM Group USA Inc. and Louis & Company. The plaintiff filed a products liability action against SCM Group USA Inc. and Louis & Company, claiming that the wood shaper was defectively designed as a tenoning device was not included as standard equipment. The plaintiff also claimed that the warnings and instructions were inadequate and defective as they were poorly translated from Italian to English and did not effectively explain how to do tenoning safely, or how to set up the machine and install guards.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff's lowest demand before trial was $2.7 million. The defendants served a C.C.P. Section 998 offer for $200,000.
Result
The jury found the plaintiff 55 percent and his employer were 40 percent responsible for the injuries and attributed 5 percent to SCM and Louis & Company finding negligence, no strict products liability with regard to warnings and instructions. The jury awarded almost $1 million in total damages. The defendant was liable for only 5 percent. Therefore, after the offset for plaintiff's own negligence and that of his employers, the judgment against the defendants was for approximately $188,000. The court awarded defendants $85,000 for their costs as the plaintiff's motion to tax costs was denied. The defendants were entitled to costs because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment in excess of the C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise. After the judgment was entered, the defendants filed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the verdict was inconsistent. Specifically, the jury answered a special question regarding whether the plaintiff was doing tenoning at the time of the accident. The defendants alleged the plaintiff's entire case was premised on the claim that he was doing a tenoning cut at the time of the accident. The jury found that he was not doing tenoning at the time. Therefore, on the defendant's judgment notwithstanding the verdict, they argued there was no causation between the warnings and instructions and his accident. The court granted the defendant's motion and set aside the verdict. The defendants were awarded approximately $85,000 in costs. The plaintiff has appealled grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict and plaintiff's denial of motion to tax costs and granting of motion to tax costs.
Other Information
PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE JUDGE
Deliberation
3.5 days
Length
two weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390