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 (Vehicular)
Automobile Accident
Negligence

Ronald I. Wolfe v. Edmondson Construction Company, et al.

Published: Jun. 7, 1997 | Result Date: May 8, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 260217 –  $0

Judge

Barton C. Gaut

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Donald A. Carstens


Defendant

Craig A. French


Experts

Plaintiff

Mitchell Colten
(medical)

Michael Cummings
(medical)

Leonard LaCaze Jr.
(technical)

Defendant

Ronald A. Sealey
(technical)

Richard N. Selby
(medical)

Facts

In March 1994, plaintiff Ronald Wolfe, a 59-year-old business owner, was driving his Ford pickup truck eastbound on Highway 74, a two-lane highway, when he collided with defendant Edmondson Construction Company's Caterpillar road grader at the intersection of Highway 74 and Richards Road in Lake Elsinore. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's vehicle was performing road grading on the shoulder of Highway 74 and suddenly backed out from Richards Road onto Highway 74 and struck his pick-up truck broadside. The plaintiff claimed that he could not veer into the lane to his left to avoid the collision because there was an oncoming vehicle that would have struck his vehicle head-on. The plaintiff's vehicle was impacted on the right front quarter panel of his pick-up truck, beginning at the headlight, and the scrapes went all the way along the right side. The damage protruded only one inch into the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff did not lose control of his vehicle as a result of the impact and did not veer outside of his lane at any time after the impact. The plaintiff brought his pick-up truck to a complete stop about 1,000 feet from the point of impact, parked it on the shoulder, and walked back to the Caterpillar operator to exchange information. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant driver and his employer based on a negligence theory of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $250,000. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $75,000.

Specials in Evidence

$86,609 $29,000 $2,500

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged he suffered a neck injury at C5-6 and ulna nerve damage, requiring elbow surgery, and concussion resulting cognitive deficits. The plaintiff underwent neck surgery on the day trial commenced. He was absent from trial the first two days, but appeared and testified on the third day. MRI films taken shortly after the accident showed degenerative arthritis in the neck. Another MRI taken shortly before trial showed further degeneration in the neck. The defendants argued that the neck surgery was due to further degeneration in the spine and was not exacerbated by the accident. The plaintiff also underwent "tennis elbow" surgery two years after the accident, which the defendants argued pre-existed the accident. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had the same elbow surgery 12 years before the accident and that substantial scar tissue had developed, causing his current symptoms. The defendants also claimed the plaintiff lied in his interrogatory answers, as he denied prior elbow surgery and/or elbow problems.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years and two months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held resulting in an award of $34,258. The plaintiff was an uninsured motorist at the time of the accident. The defendant filed a motion in limine pursuant to Proposition 213 to exclude the plaintiff's claim for general damages. Defense counsel reported that Judge Gaut refused to uphold Proposition 213, stating that it was unconstitutional because it violated the due process clause. The accident occurred in 1994 and the plaintiff's complaint was filed in January 1995. The judge argued that the retroactive application of Proposition 213 clearly violated the plaintiff's due process.

Deliberation

4 hours

Poll

11-1

Length

5 days


#79605

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

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