Facts

The accident occurred on July 7, 2006, at 10:30 p.m., when the 2004 Ford Ranger pick-up truck in which plaintiff Justin A. Meyers was a passenger, went over a 27-foot cut slope below Climax Road (maintained by Amador County) and adjacent to California State Highway 88. The truck landed on its roof on the shoulder of Highway 88.

The driver and another passenger, both friends of plaintiff, were killed in the accident. The plaintiff was rendered paraplegic, with residual cognitive disabilities. The plaintiff had just graduated from high school at the time of the incident. The three young men were going to a granite quarry to attend an informal memorial for a fellow student who had been killed in an automobile accident a few days before.

The toxicology testing of the driver of the vehicle was completely negative for drugs and alcohol.

The 27-foot high cut slope was initially created by the State of California as part of its 1933 project to build Highway 88. At the time, State of California made the cut slope immediately between the sharp curve in the county operated Climax Road. It also installed a wooden guardrail at the sharp curve. State of California claimed that it then gave the guardrail to Amador County, and Amador County contended that the guardrail was never properly relinquished to it. During the 1960s and 1970s, part of the guardrail was observed hanging in mid air as the part of the cut slope beneath it eroded away, and the guardrail was also observed to rot away, eventually disappearing altogether. The guardrail was never upgraded or replaced, by either the county or the state.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the compound reducing radius curve in Climax Road was a dangerous condition of public property in that it required constant steering connection while driving through the curve; was no longer protected by a guardrail; was improperly identified and signed; did not (because of erosion) have a proper shoulder or recovery area; lacked proper delineation markers and; had a 2-inch drop off from pavement to shoulder making recovery back onto the pavement difficult.

The plaintiff also contended that the alleged multiple conditions of Climax Road, and the adjacent 27-foot cliff created by Caltrans constituted dangerous conditions of public property under Government Code section 830, et seq.

The plaintiff claimed that the curved had a substantial accident history of similar accidents (both automobiles and logging trucks), and that Amador County and Caltrans had attempted to destroy evidence of prior accidents.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Both defendants contended that Climax Road was not in a dangerous condition when used with due care. Caltrans contended that plaintiff was not a "user" of the 27-foot cliff and therefore could not sue Caltrans under Government Code section 830.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $11 million. Amador County offered $1.5 million; State of California offered a waiver of costs.

Specials in Evidence

$800,000 (billed); $470,000 (paid) $2.2 million to $3.1 million (depending on whether plaintiff would have obtained two or four-year college degree.

Injuries

The plaintiff was rendered paraplegic (L5-6 burst fracture), and had residual cognitive disabilities. Plaintiff's neuropsychologist determined plaintiff's cognitive impairment as moderate, and opined that plaintiff would have considerable difficulty holding steady employment throughout his life. Defendant's neuropsychologist opined that plaintiff's cognitive impairment was less severe and that he would be able to hold some type of menial job throughout his lifetime.

Result

The plaintiff settled with Amador County for $4 million on Jan. 6, 2009, and then after plaintiff's expert depositions were taken, the plaintiff settled on Jan. 28, 2009 with Caltrans for $2 million.

Other Information

Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which were denied. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiff's expert opined that the "20 mph, Curves Ahead," sign posted three turns before the accident turn was ineffective to advise travelers of the extreme danger of the accident curve. They criticized the fact that the sign was posted over 700 feet preceding the dangerous curve, and then followed by two gentle curves, then the dangerous accident curve, giving the driver, especially at night, a false sense that reducing their speed from the legal speed limit of 55 mph to 20 mph was unnecessary. Experts agreed that the accident vehicle was traveling between 35-43 mph at the time it lost control in the curve, skidding then tumbling off the 27-foot cliff, landing on its roof. SHARED DAMAGE EXPERTS FOR DEFENDANTS: Randall C. Epperson, M.D., neuropsychology, Modesto Thomas L. Hedge Jr., physical medicine and rehabilitation, Northridge Steven D. Koobatian, rehabilitation, Visalia Linda D. Olzack, R.N., life care planning, Atwater Jerald Udinsky, rehabilitation economics, Berkeley