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.

CONFIDENTIAL

Mar. 13, 1999

Personal Injury (Vehicular)
Auto v. Pedestrian
Negligence

Confidential

Verdict –  $196,903

Judge

Anthony J. Mohr

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

George R. Kingsley


Defendant

Maria H. Skinner
(Mark R. Weiner & Associates)

René Korper

W. Thomas Maskey


Experts

Plaintiff

Gary E. Brazina
(medical)

Defendant

Michael J. Eckerson
(technical)

Jerome Covin
(medical)

Facts

On Dec. 14, 1995, the plaintiff, a 42-year-old carpenter/construction worker was working with a co-worker on a remodeling job on a private residence that had been damaged in the Northridge Earthquake. The plaintiff was standing in the front driveway of this house when the defendant driver of a Corvette was proceeding on Canoga Avenue when his car accelerated at a high rate of speed, veered off the roadway, went across the lawn of an adjacent home and cleared a set of bushes striking plaintiff airborne and knocking him into a pick up truck. The plaintiff sued driver claiming he was negligent. The driver was also injured and filed a lawsuit against a service shop claiming that they had recently worked on the vehicle and that they had improperly placed an air hose clamp in such a manner so as to interfere with the throttle, causing the pedal to stick. The plaintiff in this case sued both the driver of the Corvette and the service shop. The two cases were consolidated. Later in the case the car dealer was added to the lawsuit, however they settled out for a nominal $2,000. The plaintiff Corvette driver in the companion was defensed since the verdict was against him only. The details of his representation and his witnesses are not disclosed in this summary.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff initially made a statutory offer of $50,000 which was the policy limits against the insurance in January 1997. Later on after depositions were taken, the plaintiff was willing to accept the total sum of $35,000 against all defendants. The reason for this lowered settlement demand was because of the pre-existing problems as well as the felony conviction. The defendant repair shop offered $15,000 and the driver offered nothing. The plaintiff at one point indicated that if the defendant insurance would settle for $10,000, he would consider accepting it. Because of insurance failure to settle within the policy limits, the full amount of the verdict including prejudgment interest and costs has been paid. The defendant repair shop claimed costs against the driver only and not against the plaintiff in this action.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $5,663 in medical bills plus the need for the partial shoulder replacement. No lien was submitted by the hospital, but plaintiff's doctor indicated approximately costs of said surgery would have been approximately $15,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff had a pre-existing shoulder injury which required surgery 11 months prior to this accident and plaintiff had seen a doctor 10 days before this accident complaining of some discomfort in his left shoulder. The plaintiff claimed a severe aggravation of the left shoulder as well as numerous soft tissue injuries to the neck and back and a laceration to the hand. Ultimately, a year and a half later, the plaintiff underwent a partial shoulder replacement. The defendant argued that plaintiff's injuries were soft tissue in nature only and that the shoulder surgery was not due to the accident, but was a progression of the pre-existing condition and would have been necessary any way. The plaintiff's doctor indicated that five years down the road, plaintiff would have needed this surgery anyway, but the accident accelerated the need for surgery. The defendant's doctor was impeached regarding range of motion studies.

Other Information

The plaintiff had a prior felony conviction which was excluded by the court per plaintiff's motion in limine. Because of difficulties in proof plaintiff did not make a specific claim for loss of earnings. The plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to award a total verdict in the amount of $152,000 and the jury rendered a verdict in the amount of $160,000.

Deliberation

four hours

Length

six days


#80274

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

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