Facts

On April 27, 2005, at approximately 8 a.m. plaintiff Glenn Morton, 50, a tennis coach, was driving his 1969 VW bus westbound on Adams Avenue in Costa Mesa. He was struck head-on after a collision propelled a car across the center line, causing an accident.

There is a bridge on Adams Avenue which transverse the Santa Ana River. East of the bridge is Costa Mesa and west of the bridge is Huntington Beach. There is a raised center median on the bridge and on the Huntington Beach side of the bridge. There is no raised center median on the Costa Mesa side of the bridge. The bridge has a vertical curve design to it, which causes a blind spot so that drivers cannot see backed up traffic at the down-slope. East of the bridge is a traffic light. The speed limit on the bridge is 45 mph; the speed limit off the bridge is 50 mph.

At the time of the accident, traffic was backed up all the way to the down slope from the traffic light east of the bridge. Defendant Patel was driving eastbound, going uphill on the bridge and did not see the backed up traffic. As Patel got to the top of the bridge, she finally saw the vehicles backed up from the traffic light at the down-slope. Approximately 25 feet before the end of the bridge she began to maneuver to avoid the stopped vehicles. Patel swerved into another lane to avoid the vehicles, only to find more backed up vehicles. She then swerved back into her original lane, and sideswiped a stopped car. The collision caused the stopped car to propel sideways across the center line into oncoming traffic. The car collided head-on with Morton's vehicle.

Morton sued Patel and the city of Costa Mesa.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Patel was negligent in her operation of the vehicle; and Patel was driving fast, following too closely and over corrected when attempting to avoid stopped traffic.

The plaintiff also contended that the city of Costa Mesa was negligent for road design and a dangerous condition of property. The posted speed limits were too high; the vertical curve design of the bridge constituted a sight line standard violation above 35 mph; traffic had increased since the bridge was built, which resulted in increased queuing of traffic in the blind spot; and that the center median was not raised, which would have prevented the accident.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Patel did not contest liability.

It was stipulated, by and between the parties, that the bridge in question was built, designed and maintained by the county of Orange, who was not a defendant in the case. Plaintiff's theory of liability was premised on the bridge being a dangerous condition thus putting Costa Mesa on notice of the alleged dangerous condition on its property immediately to the east of the bridge. Plaintiff's traffic engineer testified that Costa Mesa should have placed a lower speed limit sign on the property of the county of Orange to slow the speed of vehicles approaching the city limit of Costa Mesa.

Costa Mesa presented evidence that Adams Avenue is a major arterial roadway with three lanes of travel east and west. The traffic volume on eastbound Adams is 19,315 per day, 386,300 vehicles a month, 4,635,600 vehicles a year. From 1990 to the date of the accident, there had never been a cross over accident at this location. In other words, 69,534,000 vehicles had driven eastbound on Adams without a prior cross over accident. In fact, since the construction of the bridge in 1977, no prior cross over accident had occurred at this location, or, 144,000,000 vehicles had safely negotiated the bridge without a single cross over accident. Moreover, the 10 year accident history never showed a prior accident, rear-end, sideswipe or otherwise, 25 feet east of the bridge where this accident occurred.

Lastly, both accident reconstruction experts testified that once one crests the bridge, one has ample site distance and stopping distance while still on the bridge before coming into Costa Mesa, if traffic is backed up.

Costa Mesa further presented evidence that a center median is not designed to prevent cross over accidents and a center barrier (Jersey wall) was not warranted, due to the lack of prior cross over accidents.

Settlement Discussions

There was a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to the city of Costa Mesa for $5,999,999.99.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered permanent brain damage and left sided spastic hemiparesis. He was hospitalized for six months. He was comatose for three weeks, required assistance of a feeding tube for approximately six months and a breathing tube for a couple weeks. He underwent physical rehabilitation and continues to undergo occupational and brain injury therapy. He needs assistance to get off the sofa or out of bed, bathe, groom, eat, and go to the restroom. He requires a permanent 24-hour live-in attendant. He has no memory of the accident, nor any short-term memory.

Result

$8,755,193 (gross) ($4,463,527 economic; $4,291,666 non-economic); $7,303,110 (net against the city of Costa Mesa). Defendant Patel settled for $50,000 policy limits after final argument and before the verdict.

Other Information

The jury found the city of Costa Mesa 65 percent negligent and Patel 35 percent negligent. Motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be filed.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

12-0 (liability against Patel), 9-3 (liability against City of Costa Mesa), 10-2 (damages)

Length

nine days