Confidential
Settlement – $2,500,000Judge
Court
L.A. Superior San Fernando
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Christopher E. Angelo
( Angelo & DiMonda)
Defendant
Daniel R. Blakey
(Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C.)
Lawrence P. Riff
(Los Angeles County Superior Court)
Experts
Plaintiff
Wes Pabst
(technical)
Hyman Gross M.D.
(medical)
Thomas J. Hays
(technical)
Jacob E. Tauber M.D.
(medical)
Ronald M. Schilling
(medical)
Karen G. Schiltz
(medical)
Joyce Elaine Pickersgill
(technical)
Defendant
John F. Kerkoff
(technical)
Paul Satz
(medical)
Eric Saslow
(medical)
Gil Tepper
(medical)
Ronald Broberg
(technical)
Facts
On March 4, 1994, the plaintiff, a 7-year-old boy, was walking by himself eastbound within a crosswalk along Lassen St. at the intersection of De Soto Ave. in Chatsworth between approximately 4:15 and 4:30 p.m. When the plaintiff reached the center divider on De Soto, his progress was stopped by the presence of a large truck hauling two trailers that was in the process of turning left from eastbound Lassen onto northbound De Soto. The presence of this large unidentified truck caused the minor plaintiff to panic, during which time the traffic light for eastbound Lassen turned red and the traffic light for northbound/southbound traffic on De Soto turned green. Because of this panic, the minor plaintiff reversed his course and proceeded westbound into the path of the southbound defendant motorist, who was travelling approximately 40 mph. The impact between the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle propelled the plaintiff 40 feet and caused him to suffer a broken femur and a closed head injury, Glasrow Type III resulting in a coma of one week's duration. The investigating police never inquired about the markings on the left-turning truck, which left the scene of the accident without stopping. During discovery against the defendant motorist, one independent witness testified that she saw the name of the defendant freight company on the left-turning truck's trailer, but could not recall whether a similar name appeared on the cab of the tractor itself. The defendant freight company was thereafter served as a defendant. The defendant freight company claimed that eight other potential sub-hauling Doe defendants, not employed by the company, could have been present at the time in question. The plaintiff served these eight other Doe defendants, all of whom testified that they did not have any sub-hauling employee present in the area of Lassen and De Soto on the day of the accident. The minor plaintiff brought this action against the defendant motorist and the defendant freight company based on negligence and spoliation theories of recovery. The plaintiff's claim for general negligence against the defendant motorist previously settled for $1.1 million.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $3 million against the defendant freight company. The defendant freight company made no settlement offer before trial.
Specials in Evidence
$125,000 $10 million (disputed)
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged that he sustained a broken left femur, requiring two surgeries that completely healed and a closed head injury resulting in a coma and permanent mild cognitive impairment.
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately two years and four months after the case was filed. Although there was no physical contact between the left-turning truck and the plaintiff, the plaintiff proceeded to trial against the defendant freight company based upon the doctrine of imminent peril, claiming that the left-turning truck operated by the freight company caused the child to "panic" and reverse his course into the path of the defendant motorist. After jury selection, the freight company settled for $1.4 million. Because the defendant freight company did not file any formal opposition to summary judgments filed by the other eight Doe defendants, the trial court also ruled before trial that the freight company was prohibited from asserting as an affirmative defense the presence of any of the other eight sub-hauling Doe defendants at the scene of the accident. The defendant was still allowed to assert as an affirmative defense that none of its employees were operating the left-turning truck that caused the plaintiff to panic. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The defendants' expert opined that the plaintiff was improving and that the remainder of his normal life expectancy would not require the kind of extensive life care plan opined by the plaintiff's experts. Per the defendants, the plaintiff's expert testified that the plaintiff suffered from a permanent brain injury which affected the child's memory, attention span, behavior and language skills. Per the defendants, the plaintiff's experts opined that the plaintiff would require intesive tutoring to compensate for those deficits and lifelong care. While the plaintiff's experts stated that plaintiff could become a college graduate, so long as sufficient life care plans and therapies were instituted, the defendants' experts opined that college graduation could be achieved with limited cognitive therapeutic intervention. Per the plaintiff, all medical experts agreed that the plaintiff suffered a mild to moderate concussive brain injury. Per the plaintiff, although the accident did not cause a fracture to the plaintiff's skull, and although MRI's were normal, all medical experts agreed that this was not relevant, and that a brain injury could still be present.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390