Facts

Plaintiff Sobenna Dunu, a Caltrans safety inspector, was hit by a Griffith Company dump truck on the I-5 freeway in July 2017. The accident occurred late at night as the Griffith Company was completing a night shift of roadway repaving under contract with Caltrans.

At the time of the accident, a Griffith dump truck was driving in reverse with its backup alarm beeping. The slow lane and right shoulder were closed off to I-5 traffic. Within the closed work area, the dump truck was backing up on the right shoulder of I-5 where there was no lighting, far away from the active work area. No one - particularly an on-site Caltrans safety inspector - was expected to be walking on foot where the accident occurred, both under the terms of the Griffith construction contract and well-established Caltrans safety procedures. Dunu, for reasons unexplained by him, was walking alone in the dark on the right shoulder with his back away from the approaching dump truck. Plaintiff testified that he did not see or hear the dump truck approaching and was subsequently stuck by the dump truck. Dunu was overseeing the repaving project on behalf of Caltrans, had been on site daily for several weeks, and was considered Caltrans' head of safety for the repaving project.

Plaintiff Sobenna Dunu and his wife Eyiuche Dunu filed suit, claiming that Griffith Company and its dump truck operator were negligent in failing to look out for Dunu. They also argued that defendants were negligent in failing to use a spotter while the dump truck was moving in reverse.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defense argued that Dunu took no responsibility for the accident. He violated numerous Caltrans safety practices by wandering into the dark, alone in an inactive location in the work area; and therefore, placed himself at risk of severe injury. The defense also argued that Dunu, as the Caltrans inspector on site, was the head of safety at the work site. If there were any issues with safety or the lack of a spotter at the worksite, Dunu had every opportunity to report Griffith Company to his supervisors, and if necessary, shut down the entire project.

The defense also argued that Dunu was not a credible witness, particularly with respect to his injury claim. Most if not all doctors who treated Dunu after the accident reported no objective findings of a serious back injury. Most future care needs claimed by Dunu were based primarily on his subject complaints of pain, bolstered, and relied upon by Dunu's paid retained medical experts. The defense argued that plaintiffs and their retained medical experts were simply not credible and their testimony regarding Dunu's past and future injuries should not be relied upon.

Injuries

After the accident, plaintiff went to urgent care as a precaution. He was diagnosed with a sprained strain and was released the same day. Several months later, and after he has retained counsel, Dunu begins complaining of significant back injuries, requiring extensive surgery and future care needs for the rest of his life. Plaintiffs asked the jury for $4.3 million dollars in damages for pain and suffering, future care, and loss of consortium.

Result

Defense verdict.

Poll

11-1

Length

14 days