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
Horse Incident

Tina Christine Holland, etc., v. Los Angeles Equestrian Center, etc., et al.

Published: Aug. 20, 1994 | Result Date: Jul. 21, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: EC002532 –  $0

Judge

Charles W. Stoll

Court

L.A. Superior Glendale


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dale F. Myers

Philip M. Aidikoff
(Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari)


Defendant

James E. Prosser

Scott L. Hengesbach
(Murchison & Cumming LLP)

Friedrich W. Seitz
(Murchison & Cumming LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Carley C. Ward
(technical)

Jocelyn Pedder
(technical)

Defendant

Peter M. Fuller
(technical)

James H. McElhaney
(technical)

Facts

On December 2, 1989, Plaintiff Tina Christine Holland, a 25-year-old groom, participated in a polo game at the Empire Polo Club when the horse that she was riding suffered a sudden heart attack. Plaintiff was unable to dismount the horse and went down with the horse, striking the ground with the right side of her head. She was rendered immediately unconscious and lapsed into a low-level coma. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was wearing a white polo helmet which allegedly was given to her by the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, 6 months before the accident. The helmet was allegedly manufactured by Helmets, Inc., a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Lexington Safety Products, Inc. This case was bifurcated. The Court first heard evidence as to whether Lexington Safety Products, Inc., was the successor-in-interest of Helmets, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of the polo helmet. The Court decided that it was. The case then was tried as to liability only.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant Southern California Hotel Group contends they made no offers and Defendant Lexington Safety Products, Inc., offered $50,000; Plaintiff demanded $1,000,000 from Defendant Southern California Hotel Group and $2,600,000 from Defendant Lexington Safety Products. Defendant Lexington Safety Products contends that Plaintiff demanded $5,000,000 during trial (withdrawn) and that Plaintiff's estimated verdict range was $14-20,000,000. Plaintiff contends her demand was $1,000,000 from Lexington.

Specials in Evidence

$500,000 $600,000 (approximately) $2,500,000

Injuries

Permanent comatose vegetative state.

Result

As to Lexington Safety Products, Inc., the jury returned a verdict in favor of this Defendant responding by way of answer to special verdict that Helmets, Inc., its predecessor-in-interest did not manufacture the helmet involved in the accident.

Other Information

The owner of the horse settled early for $175,000. The owner of Empire Polo Club offered $40,000; but motion for good faith settlement was denied, after which Empire Polo Club filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. As to Southern California Hotel Group, Inc., the Court granted a nonsuit as to all causes of action, holding that there was no evidence submitted supporting that the Los Angeles Equestrian Center was negligent or that there was a breach of any warranty. The Court also held as to strict liability that, even assuming the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, gave the polo helmet to Plaintiff, it was not within the stream of commerce as far as the distribution or sale of the product was concerned so as to subject it to strict liability.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

9-3

Length

11 days


#125207

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

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