Alfredo Arellano v. The Raymond Corporation and W.T. Billard Inc.
Published: Jun. 13, 1998 | Result Date: Apr. 22, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC126242 Verdict – $1,257,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Edwin C. Amos M.D.
(medical)
Gerry Aster
(technical)
Marianne Inouye MBA
(technical)
Lazaro Wisnia
(medical)
Peter Adler
(medical)
John B. Sevart
(technical)
Peter R. Francis Ph.D.
(technical)
Defendant
Edward M. Caulfield
(technical)
Facts
On Aug. 10, 1994, plaintiff Alfredo Arellano, was operating a Raymond forklift at the warehouse of A-1 International Foods in Los Angeles. The plaintiff was returning the forklift to the battery charging area when, he claimed, he could not get the brake to work, and the forklift continued to proceed towards the horizontal shelving which contained the battery charging apparatus. The horizontal shelving throughout the extensive warehouse, including the battery charging area, was approximately 1 to 2 inches above the top of the operator's compartment of the forklift. Consequently, the plaintiff believed he was exposed from the waist to the head area, and severe or fatal injuries, if he did not escape from the forklift before it went under the iron shelving. In attempting to escape, the plaintiff was crushed between the forklift and vertical/horizontal bars that comprised the battery charging area. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on product liability and negligence theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $1.2 million. ($1.4 million and $2 million reported by the defense.) The defendant offered $25,000 at the mediation.
Specials in Evidence
$160,000 $65,000 ($90,800 per defendant) (approximately) $500,000, ($418,000 per defendant)
Injuries
The plaintiff suffered a fractured pelvis and trauma to his urethra which, per defendant, requires continued care. The plaintiff has not been able to work since the accident and claimed he will be unable to work in the future. The defendant claimed the plaintiff would be able to return to sedentary work.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately three years after the case was filed.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
9-3
Length
20 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390