Facts

On March 13, 2012, at 10:40 p.m., Ernest Clark was outside of his stopped vehicle in the number two lane of westbound Interstate 10, east of Palm Springs. He did not have his hazard lights on. Defendant Omar Castillo was driving a tractor-trailer back from Arizona when he collided with Clark's stopped vehicle and pushed it for over 100 feet. Clark was seriously injured and succumbed to his injuries two hours after the collision.

Plaintiffs, decedent's wife and four adult children sued Castillo, alleging that his negligent operation of the tractor-trailer caused Clark's death.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Several motorists barely avoided Clark on the highway and called 911 to report a stopped vehicle in westbound lanes. Clark's family reported him missing several hours earlier and stated he suffered from Alzheimer's disease. Dozens of calls by his family to his cell phone had gone unanswered, and he had a history of getting lost while driving.

Plaintiffs contended Castillo was traveling at 55 mph on cruise control. In deposition, Castillo testified he had been talking with his then girlfriend on a hands-free cell phone at the time of the collision. His engine reports indicated that he had been driving in excess of the hours permitted by federal hours of service regulations. At trial, Castillo admitted that he only got two to three hours sleep per 24-hour period in the two days preceding the collision. Defendant's ex-girlfriend testified that they were on the phone for an hour or more when the collision occurred, and that Castillo had admitted to being tired.

Plaintiffs contended that defendant was overly fatigued at the time of the collision due to inadequate sleep, lied in his logbooks about his hours of driving, that he was distracted by his hands-free cell phone call with his then girlfriend, and that he could have avoided the collision but failed to do so. Plaintiffs also contended that decedent Clark acted reasonably and was not negligent.

During discovery, plaintiffs repeatedly sought to obtain Castillo's cell phone records for the two days leading up to the collision, to impeach his testimony that his phone call lasted only 15 minutes, and that he had slept for eight hours on the day of the collision.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the decedent had been lost on multiple prior occasions, and his family had to purchase a GPS device for him. Defense further contended that Clark was driving far from home, that he was confused, that he suffered from Alzheimer's disease, and that he stopped his car on the freeway for no reason, without engaging his hazard lights, causing the accident. Defendant also argued that Clark's family should have taken away Clark's keys, and that the failure to do so caused the accident.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, plaintiffs' demand was $2 million. Defendant offered $50,000.

Damages

At trial, plaintiffs sought non-economic damages only for loss of Clark's society, companionship, comfort, care assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support. Plaintiffs claimed they were a close family and that the loss of Clark was immense. Plaintiffs asked for $10 million for each of the five plaintiffs, with full or nearly full liability on Castillo, and little or no comparative negligence by decedent. Defense argued that the full value of decedent's wife Thelma Clark's claim was $500,000, and the value of each adult child's claim $100,000, with only 1 percent liability attributed to Castillo and 99 percent to Clark.

Injuries

After the collision, Clark was airlifted to Desert Regional Medical Center, where he died from blunt force trauma. At trial, plaintiffs' expert testified that Clark's life expectancy was 10 years. Defendant contended that Clark's life expectancy was six to seven years.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, awarding wife Thelma Clark $2,250,000 and each of the four adult children $825,000 for a total of $5,550,000. The jury also found defendant 80 percent liable and the decedent 20 percent liable and reduced plaintiff's award by a liability apportionment of 20 percent, reducing the total verdict to $4,440,000.

Other Information

Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint to allege punitive damages. The trial court granted leave to amend but ultimately struck punitive damages from the complaint. Motion for a new trial by defendant was denied, and a motion to tax costs by defendant was granted in part. According to plaintiff, Castillo refused to produce his cell phone records, claiming they were not in his custody, control or possession due to the account being in his wife's name. A discovery dispute ensued, without yielding the records, which culminated in plaintiffs being awarded an issue sanction establishing Castillo's negligence as a cause of the collision, but leaving room for Castillo to prove Clark's comparative negligence. Castillo filed a writ petition, and Clark filed a response. The Court of Appeal invited oral argument and then issued an opinion directing the trial court to re-visit its order to resolve an ambiguity. At the second hearing on the issue sanction, the trial court reimposed the sanction. Defendant filed a writ again, which was denied. FILING DATE: June 16, 2012.

Deliberation

two days

Length

four days