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. Truck
Negligent Entrustment

Jesse Equihua, Barbara Equihua v. Marilyn Chausse, Shayna Nash

Published: Oct. 22, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 18, 2021 | Filing Date: Jan. 24, 2019 |

Case number: 19AVCV00071 Verdict –  $141,189,424

Judge

Wendy Chang

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

R. Rex Parris
(Parris Law Firm) Jesse Equihua

Khail A. Parris
(Parris Law Firm) Jesse Equihua

Brittney M. Baca
(Accident Attorneys) Jesse Equihua

Eric N. Wilson
(Parris Law Firm) Jesse Equihua

James M. Baratta
(Grant, Genovese & Baratta LLP) Barbara Equihua


Defendant

Scott B. Spriggs
(Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs)


Facts

Plaintiff Jesse Equihua, a 58-year-old truck driver, was driving on West Avenue D, in Lancaster, when his truck was stuck by another vehicle while he was attempting to proceed through the intersection at 60th Street West. The other vehicle was driven by Shayna Nash, who was traveling on 60th Street West. The impact caused Equihua's truck to roll until it came to rest on its side, leaving Equihua suspended by his seatbelt. Equihua sued Nash and the owner of Nash's vehicle, Marilyn Chausse.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Nash was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Chausse was vicariously liable for Nash's actions. Plaintiff further alleged that Chausse was negligent for entrusting the vehicle to Nash because Chausse should have known that Nash was an unfit driver. Plaintiff also contended that Nash ignored a stop sign because she was talking on a cell phone.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The court struck defendants' answer to the complaint and were precluded from introducing evidence.

Damages

Plaintiff sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and damages for past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff's wife sought recovery for past and future loss of consortium.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and claimed that he also suffered herniations of his C2-3, C3-4, C5-6, C6-7, L1-2. L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 intervertebral discs. Plaintiff underwent fusion at the L4-5 level, with a right L5-S1 hemilaminotomy. Plaintiff's physicians believe that plaintiff will require three more surgeries to his spine, and the implantation of a neurostimulator. Plaintiff's physicians further believe that plaintiff will require a lifetime of care as a result of his traumatic brain injury.

Result

The jury determined that plaintiff's damages totaled $129,171,113.

Other Information

The case was tried as a default prove-up hearing.


#137938

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

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