This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Product Liability
Railcars

Jose Carrillo v. ACF Industries, et al.

Published: Mar. 30, 1996 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC083711 –  $3,190,000

Judge

Alban I. Niles

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jerome L. Ringler
(Ringler Law Corporation)


Defendant

Ronald A. Dwyer


Experts

Plaintiff

Jerome N. Borowick
(technical)

Joyce Elaine Pickersgill
(technical)

Khalid Bashir Ahmed
(medical)

Richard H. Andolsen
(technical)

Defendant

Gene Bruno M.S., C.R.C., C.C.M., C.D.M.S.
(technical)

George M. Brinton
(technical)

William Ruprecht
(technical)

Facts

On June 30, 1992, the plaintiff, Jose Carrillo, a 38-year-old truck driver, was working on top of a "hopper car" manufactured by the defendant, American Car and Foundry Industries ("ACF"), when he fell. The particular railcar involved was a covered "hopper car" designed in the late 1960's by ACF. Like all other hopper cars in service on United States rail lines, ACF's hopper car was not equipped with any fall protection which could be used by a person required to work on top of it. Rail line and other workers must climb to the top of these railcars, which are at least 15 feet in height, to insert hoses into the top of the railcars through which products can be deposited. The plaintiff alleged that when he fell from the hopper car, he sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, ACF and the owner/operator of the premises where the accident occured (which defendant settled before trial). The plaintiff's action against before ACF was based on strict products liability, breach of warranty, defective design and failure to warn theories of recovery. The plantiff's action against the defendant owner (who settled before trial) was based on a premesis liability theory of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $200,000. ACF made a settlement offer for $50,000, which was increased to $200,000 at the close of evidence.

Specials in Evidence

$354,327 $137,405 $774,740 present cash value (per the plaintiff), $440,000 (per the defendant) $300,000 (per the plaintiff), $100,000 (per the defendant)

Damages

Per the plaintiff, the plaintiff claimed future medical care requirements of $300,000; per the defendant, ACF, the plaintiff claimed past medical care requirements of $354,327 and future medical care of $100,000. The plaintiff claimed future loss of earnings of $750,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that he sustained a comminuted fracture of his left wrist, a comminuted fracture of his lower left leg, a simple fracture to his right foot and numerous abrasions and puncture wounds as a result of the accident. He also alleged that he was required to undergo eight surgeries; had a very difficult rehabilitation course; suffered a shortened left leg; and had numerous residual problems with pain management and ambulation (including being unable to work in his former occupation) as a result of the accident. The plaintiff is employable.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years and eight months after the case was filed. Per the plaintiff, neither ACF nor any other hopper car manufacturer in the United States has ever been found liable on a design defect or failure to warn theory for the absence of fall protection on top of their covered hopper cars. There are over 300,000 hopper cars in service on United States railroads. Of these, ACF manufactured roughly 100,000. Over the plaintiff's objection, the court allowed the defendant to offer testimony of the number of times their products have been used without falls by workers (in the millions). An additional defendant settled for $300,000 ($200,000 to the plaintiff and $100,000 to Amoco) just prior to jury selection. The plaintiff purchased Amoco's lien before jury selection and the case proceeded against ACF. Amoco brought a lawsuit to recover its lien in the amount of $344,000. The defendants, ACF and the settling owner/operator of the premises where the accident occured, cross-complained against Amoco.

Deliberation

2 days

Poll

various

Length

10 days


#119546

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390