Facts

On May 19, 2005, shortly after 7 a.m., Jose Mendez, 10, his brother, Juan Mendez, 12, and their friend, Henry, 11 were on their way to school. Jose Mendez was seated on a skateboard traveling downhill on 4th Street, southbound, approaching the intersection with Gilman Street in Banning. Juan Mendez and Henry were following him on a skateboard, which they were riding on together.

Defendant Edward Brown, an employee of Western Farm Service Inc., was traveling eastbound on Gilman, approaching the intersection with 4th Street. Brown was driving a Ford pickup truck owned by Western Farm Service Inc. North and southbound traffic on 4th Street was controlled by a stop sign at the intersection with Gilman Street. There was no stop sign for east and westbound traffic on Gilman Street at the intersection of 4th Street.

Jose Mendez, riding his skateboard, and Edward Brown, driving his pickup truck, collided in the intersection of 4th and Gilman Streets when Jose Mendez struck the side of the pickup. Jose Mendez sustained fatal injuries.

Jose Mendez's mother, Edith Gomez, filed a claim for wrongful death and his brother, Juan Mendez, filed a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Edward Brown and Western Farm Service Inc.

For reasons that were disputed by the parties, Jose Mendez rode through the stop sign. The plaintiffs admitted that Jose Mendez was partly at fault for the incident.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that Brown could have avoided the collision if he was not speeding and if he was paying attention.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Brown contended that he was not speeding and was paying attention at the time of the incident.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs' lowest demand was $1.5 million. The defendants offered a total of $450,000.

Damages

The plaintiffs requested the jury to render a verdict of $13 million, $8 million for plaintiff Gomez and $5 million for plaintiff Mendez.

Injuries

Death of Jose Mendez. Juan Mendez suffered emotional distress.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

Plaintiffs contend that there was juror misconduct in that a juror (who later became the foreperson) approached the defense team asking to talk about the case. Plaintiffs also intend to bring a motion for new trial alleging that there was insufficient evidence to justify the defense verdict. FILING DATE: May 18, 2007.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (defense)

Length

seven days