Guadalupe Cabrales and Javier Cabrales v. Pacific Gas & Electric, James Pratt
Published: May 10, 1997 | Result Date: Apr. 10, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 972273 – $5,100
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Robert P. Hamilton
(ADR Services)
Experts
Plaintiff
Ana Mogro
(medical)
William Plautz
(medical)
William Tappan
(medical)
Richard Patterson
(medical)
Kenneth Buske
(technical)
Defendant
Frederick Holmes
(technical)
Patricia Robertson
(medical)
Roderic C. Tosetti
(technical)
Facts
During a storm in March 1995, plaintiffs Guadalupe and Javier Cabrales lost power in the house they were renting from defendant James Pratt. The plaintiffs claimed the power was out for three days, until defendant Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) went to the house and reconnected a broken wire. The plaintiffs claimed that after the alleged repair, fuses began blowing every time they turned on the microwave and another appliance at the same time. The plaintiffs also claimed that they began feeling shocks in the kitchen sink and shower. The plaintiffs claimed they notified defendant Pratt, through his daughter, that they were receiving shocks and that there was a water leak under the house. Defenant Pratt's daughter and her husband went to the house approximately one week later and trimmed branches away from power lines running from a PG&E power pole outside the property to the corner of the house. The daughter and son-in-law denied they were ever advised of any electric shocks and claimed they were only advised to trim away tree limbs from the power lines. The plaintiffs claimed they also notified PG&E, who allegedly re-wired the home, examined the switches and saw that fuses would blow when the microwave was turned on. The following week, on March 24, plaintiff Guadalupe Cabrales was electrically shocked while bathing her dog at an outside faucet. The dog was killed. At the time of the accident, plaintiff Guadalupe Cabrales was six weeks pregnant. On April 15 , she suffered a miscarriage. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against the defendants based on breach of implied warranty of habitability, premises liability, negligence, products liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, spoliation of evidence and loss of consortium.
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Specials in Evidence
$__________________ $__________________ $__________________ $__________________
Injuries
The plaintiff wife claimed she suffered electrocution and the miscarriage of a six-week-old unborn child. The plaintiff husband claimed loss of consortium.
Other Information
EXPERT TESTIMONY: Per the Pratt defendants: the plaintiffs' initial expert took the position that the doorbell transformer short-circuited and the water pipes in the house became electrically charged. The plaintiff's alternative theory, as expressed through their expert, was that water had accumulated under the house during the storms of March 1994 and that an exposed wire hanging down from the subfloor caused the house to become energized. The plaintiffs' expert underwent emergency heart surgery approximately one week into trial. The plaintiff's new expert, Kenneth Buske, rejected the theories of the plaitniffs' initial expert and testified that defendant PG&E had negligently crossed wieres at the weatherhead (corner) of the house during one of their visits, thereby causing the house to become electrically charged. Defendant PG&E's expert, Frederick Holmes, and defendant Pratt's expert, Roderic Tosetti, rejected this theory, testifying that the house was a 1940s originally-wired house with an ungrounded wiring system (consistent with the electrical code at that time) and the crossing of wires would not have led to having the house being electricallyn charged. Defense expert Holmes also testified that the short in the doorbell transformer most likely caused the house to become energized. Defense expert Tosetti also testified that the electrical malfunction could not have been aniticipated. The plaintiffs' medical experts testified that the miscarriage was caused as a result of the electrical shock, that a sonogram four days following the incident was abnormal in that it failed to accurately demonstrate fetal heart activity, and that the fetus was abnormally small given its estimated age. The plaintiffs' treating physicians testified that the sonogram four days after the incident showed normal fetal heart activity. Defense medical expert Patricia Robertson testified that the electrical shock incident was unrelated to the subsequent miscarriage.
Deliberation
1 day
Poll
varied
Length
2 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390