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.

CONFIDENTIAL

Sep. 24, 1998

Personal Injury
Assault and Battery
Negligent Hiring

Confidential

Settlement –  $500,000

Court

L.A. Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Richard C. Binder

Paul S. Norris


Defendant

Charles D. Jarrell
(Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory & Natsis LLP )

Jeffrey S. Behar
(Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar LLP)


Facts

On Oct. 5, 1996, plaintiff, a 28-year-old administrative assistant, arrived at defendant's fast food restaurant with two friends. They drove into the defendant's drive-thru lane behind a Cadillac car. It appeared to plaintiff and his friends that the occupants of the yellow Cadillac were not ordering food items but were having on ongoing conversation through the window of their car by talking directly into the ordering box with an employee who was inside defendant's restaurant. After about 10 minutes of waiting for the occupants of the Cadillac to finish their conversation with the employee, plaintiff honked his vehicle's horn. At this time, one of the occupants of the Cadillac threw a partial piece of a red steel pipe (later determined to be a steering wheel lock [the "Club"]) from their vehicle's driver side window. This steel pipe did not hit plaintiff or his vehicle but landed on the sidewalk next to the restaurant's side customers' doors directly adjacent to the drive-thru lane. The yellow Cadillac then suddenly drove away without ordering any food items. The plaintiff drove his vehicle forward in the drive-thru lane where he then attempted to order food. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's employee immediately exited the restaurant's side customers' doors, picked up the Club from the restaurant's sidewalk and violently assaulted the plaintiff and his two friends while they were sitting in plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff further alleged that at this time, the employee berated and accused plaintiff and his two friends of "chasing away" the restaurant's customers, referring to the occupants of the Cadillac. The employee then reentered the restaurant through the same doors he had previously exited and took the Club with him. During this period of time, the employee was "on duty" and was wearing the uniform issued to him by defendant. After this part of the altercation, plaintiff and his friends took a period of time to compose themselves. Eventually, the plaintiff paid for his and his friend's food and left the restaurant's drive-thru lane. Plaintiff then drove directly to his apartment, which is located less than a mile from defendant's restaurant. Upon arriving at the driveway of his apartment, the plaintiff was physically battered by the defendant's employee using the Club which had been previously thrown out of the Cadillac at defendant's restaurant. Unbeknowst to plaintiff and his two friends, the employee had followed the plaintiff from the restaurant to the plaintiff's apartment building. The employee's alleged battery of plaintiff occurred after plaintiff exited his vehicle while it was parked in the driveway of the building where his apartment is located. Plaintiff's two friends were not injured as both of them remained in plaintiff's vehicle during the altercation. During this period of time, the employee was still wearing the uniform issued to him by defendant. Immediately after the incident, the Los Angeles Police Department's investigators located the Club at the plaintiff's apartment building. The investigators determined that there were no detectable fingerprints on the Club. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a positive identification of the employee in a line-up. The plaintiff brought this action against the restaurant based on a respondeat superior theory of recovery for assault and battery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $___________. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $_____________ .

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $35,000 in medical expenses and $50,000 in lost earnings. The plaintiff claimed he was fored to resign due to his injuries.

Injuries

The plaintiff immediately lost consciousness at his apartment building and thereafter required emergency medical assistance. He received eight stitches to his head. He also sustained a concussion which he claimed has caused, and continues to cause, memory loss, headaches, and a degenerative physical, psychological and mental condition. The plaintiff underwent medical treatment and rehabilitative therapy with a neurologist, two neuropsychiatrists, and a psychologist.

Other Information

The settlement was reached approximately one year and eight months after the case was filed. A mediation was held before the Hon. Robert D. Fratianne (Ret.) of Alternative Resolution Center resulting in the reported settlement.


#126600

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

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