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
Worksite Accident
Wrongful Death

Carolina Orejel De Rodriguez, et al. v. Osterkamp Farms dba Osterkamp Ranches

Published: Oct. 29, 2016 | Result Date: Aug. 1, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: ECU08868 Settlement –  $1,037,500

Court

Imperial Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tyler J. Barnett
(Yuhl Carr LLP)

Michael P. Ehline
(Ehline Law Firm PC)

James P. Carr
(Yuhl Carr LLP)


Defendant

Randall L. Brownwood
(Santa Cruz, Brownwood & Cannon)


Facts

Plaintiff Carolina Orejel De Rodriguez filed suit against defendant Osterkamp Farms dba Osterkamp Ranches, in connection with the death of her husband, Jose Rodriguez.

Decedent, 60, was engaged as an independent truck owner-operator to haul loads of sugar beets from the fields owned and farmed by defendant Osterkamp Farms.

Plaintiffs are decedent's surviving spouse and six adult children.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
On May 19, 2015, at 3:30 a.m., decedent and one of defendant's beet harvester machine operators were outside their respective vehicles, either standing at the rear of the beet harvester while talking or attempting to remove mud that had built up due to moisture in the field. The machine operator left the rear of the beet harvester, entered the cab of his tractor, and engaged the power take-off shaft without being able to see decedent, and without making a reasonable effort to determine and confirm that the only other human in the vicinity was "clear of machinery." After the harvester was in operation for 30-60 seconds, the operator returned to the rear of the harvester where he discovered decedent's lifeless body inside.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed through their pleadings that the decedent was comparatively at fault for this fatal industrial accident. Defendants suggested that the decedent should have realized that the power to the harvester was about to be engaged and should not have placed himself in a position of danger. Defendants argued that decedent was a mere bystander in the minutes prior to his death, and had no reason to be near, or on, or "in", the harvester.

Result

The case settled for $1,037,500.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 21, 2015.


#125070

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

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