Facts

At 5:15 a.m. on the northbound I-5 freeway near Valencia, plaintiff was traveling in a group of other vehicles when she lost control, left the roadway and rolled over.

Plaintiff filed suit against another driver and his former employer, the owner of the vehicle he was driving.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the retired employee was the primary cause of the accident because he moved into the plaintiff's lane and thereby caused her to lose control of her vehicle. A witness testified that, although plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed and frequently changing lanes, another vehicle moved into her lane and cut her off, causing the plaintiff to take evasive action and lose control of her vehicle. The driver who cut her off did not stop, but the eyewitness chased after him, wrote down his license plate number and later confronted him at a gas station. Based on the license plate number and the eyewitness' description, plaintiff's counsel identified the defendant retired employee of the company.

Plaintiff claimed that the defendant company was liable because it had negligently entrusted the vehicle to the retired employee, who had a record of multiple at-fault accidents and traffic tickets during the several years prior to the subject accident.

Approximately 10 months prior to the subject accident, the company had purported to suspend the retired employee's privileges to drive the vehicle, but they left him keep physical possession of it, and he kept driving it.

Plaintiff argued that standard practice in the fleet management field required that the company remove the vehicle from the retired employee's possession once it determined that he was an unsafe driver.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant retired employee testified that he was not involved in the subject accident and that this was a case of mistaken identity.

Defendant company contended that it was not liable for negligent entrustment because it did not in fact entrust the vehicle to the retired employee at the time of the subject accident. Rather, it had suspended his driving privileges.

Both defendants contended that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident because of her excessive speed and erratic driving. Two witnesses, who were traveling in the same vehicle, testified that plaintiff passed them at 100 mph, frequently changed lanes as she approached a group of vehicles up ahead and lost control because of her excessive speed and erratic driving.

Injuries

Plaintiff sustained a fracture/dislocation at C7-T1 and was rendered a paraplegic. She can no longer work and requires 24-hour care.

Result

The case settled for $2.2 million on the first day of trial.

Other Information

Plaintiff did not have liability insurance at the time of the accident, and thus was limited to recovering economic damages only, pursuant to proposition 213 (Civil Code section 3333.4(a)). The defendant company's insurance carrier denied coverage as to the retired employee because he was not authorized to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. The retired employee did not have any personal insurance coverage of his own.