Ryan Garcia, a minor by and through his guardians, Jim Garcia and Tamara Cascarano, Jim Garcia, Tamara Cascarano v. Scott G. Byrd, a minor, Teri Byrd, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, County of Sacramento
Published: Nov. 15, 2008 | Result Date: May 28, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 06AS01199 Settlement – $830,000
Court
Sacramento Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
John N. Demas
(Demas Law Group PC)
Steven H. Schultz
(Schultz Law Group PC)
Defendant
Matthew C. Jaime
(Matheny, Sears, Linkert & Jaime LLP)
Carl J. Calnero
(Porter Scott)
Jennifer E. Duggan
(Duggan McHugh Law Corporation)
Dayton V. Longyear
(Longyear & Lavra LLP)
Mark P. O'Dea
(Longyear O'Dea and Lavra LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Martha J. Hawkins
(medical)
Carley C. Ward
(technical)
Christopher Furbish
(technical)
Carol R. Hyland M.A.
(technical)
Harvey A. Kalan
(medical)
Thomas G. Schultz
(technical)
William Anderson
(technical)
Alan E. Brooker
(medical)
Deborah Doherty
(medical)
Don L. Ivey Ph.D.
(technical)
Charles R. Mahla Ph.D.
(technical)
Brian Thionnet
(technical)
David M. Yoshida M.D.
(technical)
Facts
On Aug. 22, 2004, Ryan Garcia was a passenger in a car driven by Scott Byrd. Byrd drifted to the side of the road and made contact with the curb. Garcia had extended his head out of the window because his hat had blown away. At the time of the impact with the curb, Garcia had his entire torso extended outside the vehicle, with his seatbelt unsecured. He then struck his head on the utility pole as Byrd made contact with the curb.
Byrd was driving approximately 35 to 45 mph. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) placed the utility pole. Garcia, through his parents, sued Byrd, his parent Teri Byrd, SMUD, and the county of Sacramento, alleging negligence.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs asserted that the pole was installed in a dangerous location because it was only 8.5 inches from the road. Further, plaintiffs claimed that road design principles hold that utility poles should be placed in the farthest possible position away from the road. SMUD failed to consider the advice of the National Safety Council to place utility poles farther away. Lastly, SMUD did not plan on examining or reducing the risk presented.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
SMUD asserted that the pole was created with proper guidelines and specifications; that Garcia was acting recklessly; and that Byrd was acting recklessly; that the pole was not placed negligently; and that SMUD was immune pursuant to Government Code section 830. The county contended that its specifications fro pole placement were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1960; that any movement of the pole would hinder the county's right of way; that no risk is posed to drivers when the pole is used with due care; that no duty to warn existed; and that the county was also entitled to immunity. Further, the county alleged that Byrd and Garcia were acting up to cause the vehicle to jump the curb.
Damages
Garcia claimed medical expenses plus damages for pain and suffering.
Injuries
As a result of the incident, Garcia suffered blindness in one eye, coma, facial bone fractures, fractured skull, loss of fine motor skills, traumatic brain injury, speech impairment, unconsciousness, and pulmonary problems. In addition, Garcia required physical therapy.
Result
A mediated settlement resulted in payment of $830,000 to the plaintiffs; $400,000 by the county of Sacramento; $400,000 from SMUD and $30,000 from Byrd.
Other Information
Geico insured the Byrds.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390