Facts

On Feb. 10, 2011, plaintiff Diego Equihia was injured at a large construction site in Los Angeles. Defendants include Doe general contractor and Doe concrete subcontractor, who were hired to construct an exhaust shaft on the construction site premises.

Plaintiff worked as a "kettleman" for a roofing subcontractor, who was hired by cross-defendant. During the course of his employment, plaintiff was required to work near a giant kettle, mixing and keeping tar warm, which was ultimately pumped on to the roof of the building located at the construction site.

The kettle was located near the exhaust shaft constructed by concrete subcontractor. On the day of the accident, plaintiff fell through the hole, which was approximately 20-feet deep.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the general contractor maintained control or supervised over its construction site, such that it permitted the 20-foot hole to be improperly covered, in violation of several CAL-OSHA rules and regulations. Plaintiff also contended the general contractor intentionally and recklessly destroyed the cover that was used for the hole prior to litigation. Plaintiff was prejudiced in that he could not have the cover evaluated for safety, or compliance with CAL/OSHA regulations, nor could he evaluate the cover to test the accuracy of testimony.

Plaintiff claimed that the concrete subcontractor and their employees and agents failed to warn plaintiff's employer of the dangerous hole, and took actions on the date of the accident to remove the cover that was on the hole just prior to plaintiff's fall.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that responsibility could not be determined because no one actually saw plaintiff's fall and plaintiff himself could not recall exactly how he fell. Defendants claimed that the cover was still in place over the hole, even after plaintiff's injury.

Defendants claimed that no evidence existed to establish how the cover on the hole was removed prior to the accident. The circumstantial evidence would equally suggest a theory that plaintiff did not fall in the hole at all, but rather entered the shaft from below and subsequently fell from a ladder inside the shaft.

Defendants also claimed that plaintiff's action was barred by the Privette line of authority, which has been used to immunize general contractors for injuries such as plaintiffs.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff made a CCP 998 demand for $18 million, the total policy limits of all defendants.

Damages

Plaintiff presented evidence of present medical damages of $723,000; approximately $5 million in future lifetime medical costs; $1,222,000 in future loss of earnings.

Injuries

Plaintiff's injuries included a skull fracture, severe traumatic brain injury, epidural hematoma and a subdural hematoma, as well as frontal lobe damage to his brain. He also suffered a broken sternum and acute respiratory failure. Plaintiff spent approximately one month at UCLA Medical Center. His long-term injuries included significant cognitive defects, as well as severe headaches and insomnia. Defendants disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries.

Result

The case settled after mediation for $4,750,000.

Other Information

Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment, which were pending at the time of settlement.