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.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Negligence

Sharon Henning v. US Bank

Published: Dec. 19, 2009 | Result Date: Nov. 12, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SC096472 Settlement –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Santa Monica


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert M. Hindin


Defendant

Kevin J. Gramling
(Klinedinst PC)

Jennifer S. Vicente
(Klinedinst PC)


Experts

Plaintiff

Jason Hymes
(medical)

Defendant

John R. Brault M.S.
(technical)

Arthur Kreitenberg M.D.
(medical)

Facts

Plaintiff Sharon Henning was attempting to complete a banking transaction at a remote drive-up teller machine at a US Bank branch in Santa Monica. The canister got stuck somewhere between the remote teller machine and the teller inside the bank. After the canister returned to the remote teller, the plaintiff put her left hand around the canister to remove the canister from the remote teller machine. The plaintiff alleged the plexi-glass window started to close while she had her left hand on the canister. The plaintiff claimed that she had to reach across her body with her right hand to free her left hand from the remote teller machine and injured her shoulder, neck and upper back.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that US Bank was negligent because its employee caused the plexi glass window to close on plaintiff's hand.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
US Bank contended that it was not negligent. The remote teller machine was installed in early 2004 and there had not been any similar incidents prior to plaintiff's incident. US Bank was not on notice of problems with the remote teller machine.

Furthermore, experts concluded that the remote teller machine was designed such that the plexi-glass window would retract once it met resistance and the expert could not reconstruct the incident as plaintiff alleged.

US Bank also maintained that plaintiff's incident did not cause her injuries and that the medical conditions that plaintiff claimed were similar to medical conditions that plaintiff had before the incident.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $90,000 with an indication the case might settle for $75,000. The plaintiff served a C.C.P. Section 998 for $25,000 in August 2009. US Bank did not make any offers.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed the incident caused her to incur almost $90,000 in medical specials for treatment to her neck, shoulder and back.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered nerve damage and soft tissue injuries to her neck, left shoulder and upper back. The plaintiff had numerous trigger point and epidural injections over a six-month period following the incident.

Result

During voir dire, the plaintiff dismissed the case in exchange for a waiver of appeal rights and costs.

Other Information

US Bank's demurrer to the product liability cause of action was sustained. US Bank's motion for summary judgment was denied. MEDIATOR: Ralph O. Williams. FILING DATE: Dec. 20, 2007.


#84262

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

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