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
Auto v. Pedestrian
Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian

John Doe v. Roe Driver

Published: May 17, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 23, 2017 |

Settlement –  $20,000,000

Judge

Georgina T. Rizk

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Arash Homampour
(The Homampour Law Firm PC)

Danielle N. Lincors
(The Homampour Law Firm PC)


Defendant


Facts

On Oct. 21, 2016, plaintiff John Doe, a 41-year old chef at a fast-food restaurant, was within the crosswalk walking to the store to purchase some pepper for his employer when he was struck by defendant driver making a left turn.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant made an unsafe left turn and failed to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Plaintiff sued defendant driver for negligence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff was at fault for this incident since defendant began her left turn before plaintiff was in the crosswalk, arguing that plaintiff should have seen her turning. Further, defendant contended that she never saw plaintiff being struck by her vehicle and that the impact was a minor tap.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and torn meniscus. He claimed that the torn meniscus required surgery, and that the surgery performed caused him to develop complex regional pain syndrome. Plaintiff contended that he had severe psychological issues due to his extreme pain levels from the CRPS. Plaintiff claimed that there is no cure for his condition and he will live in excruciating pain for the rest of his life. Defendant contended that plaintiff did not strike his head, did not sustain a mild TBI, and was faking his TBI symptoms. Defendant contended that the meniscus tear was pre-existing, unrelated to the incident, and did not need surgical intervention. Defendant claimed that the CRPS plaintiff developed from the surgery was not related to the incident. Further, though defendant initially contended that plaintiff did not have CRPS, according to their expert, defendant later contended that plaintiff greatly exaggerated his CRPS symptoms.

Result

Plaintiff settled with defendant for $20 million.

Other Information

This was a single plaintiff, single defendant case, with a $1.5 million insurance policy.


#131349

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

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