Teanna Ford v. David Theophilus Curvis Jr., City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 to 100
Published: Mar. 9, 2018 | Result Date: Feb. 22, 2018 | Filing Date: May 16, 2014 |Case number: BC545985 Verdict – Defense
Judge
Court
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Anton Richardson
(Southern California Law Center)
Daniel K. Balaban
(Balaban & Spielberger LLP)
Defendant
Janine K. Jeffery
(Reily & Jeffery Inc.)
Experts
Plaintiff
Edward J. Ruzak P.E.
(traffic engineer)
Michael D. Smith M.D.
(orthopedic surgery)
Joanne Latham
(life care planning)
A. Jubin Merati Ph.D.
(economics)
Samuel P. Smith M.D.
(psychiatry)
Defendant
Dave Royer
(traffic engineering)
Frederic G. Nicola M.D.
(orthopedic surgery)
Steven A. Blewett
(accident reconstruction)
Reginald L. Gibbs M.S.
(life care planning)
Terry McGee M.D.
(toxicology)
Facts
On Oct. 1, 2012, plaintiff Teanna Ford, 15, was struck by a car while walking in a marked crosswalk at Slauson Ave. and 11th Ave. in Los Angeles.
Plaintiff sued the City of Los Angeles alleging that that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that the volume of cars passing through the intersection, the 35 mile per hour speed limit, the small number of gaps, and the fact that there was a nearby high school rendered this intersection dangerous. Plaintiff further alleged that since there had been prior pedestrian accidents in the intersection, including a teen fatality in 2007, the intersection was dangerous without a traffic signal. Plaintiff also alleged that since a traffic signal for the intersection had been approved by the city in 2008, it should have been installed by the time of the accident. The signal was not completed until March 2013.
The driver was uninsured and did not appear at trial. According to the police report, the driver claimed he did not see plaintiff before he hit her because the sun was in his eyes.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff testified in deposition that she looked for cars before entering the intersection and did not see any. Yet, the defense offered evidence that the car was approximately 200 feet away when she entered the intersection and there were no sight obstructions. Plaintiff also testified that she did not see the car before it hit her. Yet, at the time the car hit her, plaintiff was 30 feet into the intersection.
Defense contended that the property was not dangerous when used with due care. If the pedestrian and the driver look where they are going, the intersection is safe. The city also asserted that the accident was caused solely by the inattention of plaintiff and the driver. The city also argued that it was entitled to design immunity.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff demanded $3 million. The city offered $200,000.
Specials in Evidence
Meds: $394,685 waived at trial Loe: waived at trial Future Loe: waived at trial
Damages
Plaintiff sought a total of $4.5 million in damages at trial.
Injuries
Plaintiff suffered a broken knee and broken elbow. Plaintiff also claimed an eight-inch scar on her leg and a scar on her forehead.
Result
The jury found the intersection did not constitute a dangerous condition of public property.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
11-1
Length
five days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390