Shirley Flint v. Johnson Garage Door Company and Martin Door Manufacturing Company
Published: Oct. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: MC002615 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Lancaster
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
On July 11, 1991, plaintiff Shirley Flint, a 42-year-old homemaker, entered Johnson Garage Door Co. in Palmdale to buy a small part for her garage door. After completing the sale, she claimed she stepped straight back from the service counter, came into contact with a Martin Garage Door display, struck the inside of her right calf on a diagonal brace of the display, while partly falling and twisting to the left, the plaintiff struck the display with her left shoulder. The display was a frame containing garage door segments. The plaintiff claimed to have immediately reported it to a store employee. The employee denied witnessing any accident. The plaintiff claimed the pain was so severe that she drove herself home using only her left foot for gas and brake. There was never any subsequent report of the accident to the store until service of the summons and complaint about 15 months later. The plaintiff claimed that when she arrived home, she called her gynecologist who could not see her immediately. She decided not to wait and went to Lancaster Community Hospital's emergency room. She was seen and told she had a bruise. She was advised to keep ice on it to keep her leg elevated. She was also given an ace bandage and told to see an orthopedist in a week. She subsequently saw the orthopedist who advised surgery to drain the bruise. This outpatient surgery was done eight days after the accident. Thereafter, the plaintiff began seeing various doctors, resulting in six more surgeries to the same incision site. She developed a burning pain immediately after the first surgery, one of the principal signs of reflex sympathetic dystropy (RSD). Over the next several years, the plaintiff became convinced that she had RSD in her right leg. Eventually her doctors diagnosed her as having end stage RSD (Stage 3) with no hope of recovery. Her most recent treating doctor installed an implant infusion pump to administer morphine or other narcotics directly into the base of her spinal canal for pain management. This pump is refilled every month. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant Johnson based on premises liability and against defendant Martin based on products liability theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
A final settlement conference was held at ARC before Judge Irwin Nebron just before trial started. The plaintiff demanded $1.75 million. The best offer by both defendants was $350,000. After the start of trial, the defendants increased their offer to $450,000 which the plaintiff rejected with no counter offer.
Specials in Evidence
$139,000 $382,488 $1,866,750
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $78,171 in damages for her services as a homemaker. The plaintiff asked the jury for $3 million in damages for economic loss and $2.5 million in damages for pain and suffering.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately five years and seven months after the case was filed. Defendant Martin had settled the case with plaintiff for $100,000 in November 1996 but referee Ross Anspoker in Lancaster denied their motion for good faith settlement approval. Martin petitioned a writ to the Court of Appeal which granted review, but denied the writ. Plaintiff substituted in a new attorney to try her case. Multiple settlement conferences were held in July 1997 before Judge Nebron of ARC. It did not resolve the matter. The plaintiff and defendants sued most of her treating doctors for malpractice in a separate action. Some defendant doctors won on a motion for summary judgment based upon statute of limitations grounds, and others had the the case dismissed based on the absence of negligence. Per the defendant, the plaintiff had a subsequent injury at a K Mart store on Jan. 1, 1994, for which she retained a different attorney. A demurrer on statute of limitations grounds was sustained in the K Mart action. The facts of the K Mart injury were used to impeach plaintiff's testimony that she had sustained any injury at Johnson Garage Door. She reported to K Mart that she had no prior existing disability. That lawsuit also included a claim for premises liability and product defect similar to the claims against Johnson and Martin.
Deliberation
1+ days
Poll
12-0 (negligence); 11-1 (no causation); 11-1 (products liability)
Length
23 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390