Facts

The decedent, the 19-year-old son of the plaintiff, died when run over by the right front tire of a refuse truck manufactured by defendant. The decedent, a helper, had fallen while attempting to enter the vehicle. The driver had started to move the vehicle before the decedent was safely aboard.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the refuse truck was defective in design due to the absence of grab handles, a slippery threshold, and an unsafe interior door handle.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the vehicle did not require grab handles for safe entry because of the low entry design which allowed the passenger to easily step into an 18-inch threshold without climbing. The threshold was not slippery and there was nothing defective in providing a handle on the interior of the door.

Settlement Discussions

At mediation, the lowest demand was $840,000; the highest offer was $75,000.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

Motion for new trial was denied. Plaintiff's counsel contended that the trial court erroneously admitted defendant's video surveillance of unidentified users of trucks equipped with grab handles not using the handles to get into the vehicle, and of the subject truck in use after the incident by decedent's employer without the grab handles. Defendant's primary defense was that these videos confirmed that even if the truck was equipped with the grab handles, decedent would not have used them. Plaintiff contended that this video evidence was inadmissible, irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The court's error in allowing defendant to repeatedly use the videos was compounded when it refused to give an instruction that when the evidence indicates that a safety device, designed to prevent the very injury that occurred, was not present, an inference may be drawn, and a plaintiff does not need to prove to a certainty, that the device would have prevented the accident. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the jury issue of causation. The trial court stated at the hearing on the motion essentially that he did not understand how one could conclude that the grab handles would not have prevented the incident but he felt bound by the jury's decision. Plaintiff will be filing an appeal. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's experts Thomas Boster and Janet Jhoun claimed the vehicle was defective in design due to the absence of grab handles, a slippery threshold, and an unsafe interior door handle and that the defects were the cause of the decedent's inability to prevent the fall. Defense experts Russell Noble and Richard Harding testified that the design was not defective and that grab handles, had they been present, would not have prevented the fall. FILING DATE: June 14, 2006.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

9-3

Length

eight days