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
Auto v. Auto
Rear-End Collision

Elaine Sutton, et al. v. Vanida Lee, et al.

Published: May 16, 2009 | Result Date: Apr. 14, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07K21065 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cheryl C. Turner
(Law Office of Cheryl Turner)


Defendant

Michael G. Hogan
(Raffalow Rhoads & Bretoi)


Facts

On Nov. 12, 2005, at 2 p.m., defendant Vanida Lee, 36, was driving a 1991 Toyota Camry in the fast lane of the eastbound Santa Monica freeway, near Arlington Avenue in Los Angeles. The defendant struck the rear of a 2000 Nissan Sentra, being operated by plaintiff Elaine Sutton, a 72-year-old caregiver, and occupied by Sutton's granddaughter, Se-Aira Benson, 13. The court dismissed Benson's case prior to trial.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In response to defendant's claim that plaintiff changed lanes directly in front of her, plaintiff contended that she was always in the fast lane before the accident. Plaintiff had stopped for traffic when she was rear-ended by defendant. The plaintiff maintained she observed the defendant in her rearview mirror just before the accident talking on a cellular phone.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that plaintiff caused the accident when plaintiff passed her on the right and then changed lanes directly in front of her, cutting off her stopping distance and then abruptly stopped for traffic. The defendant claimed that she applied her brakes, but was unable to avoid striking plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant argued the accident was minor, resulting in a "soft touch" impact.

Specials in Evidence

$4,425 The plaintiff claimed she earned $150 per day as a caregiver. She missed 90 days from work and sought loss of earnings of $13,500. She was paid cash and presented no documentation at trial to support her loss of earnings claim.

Damages

The plaintiff's property damage claim settled for $3,284. There was no damage to defendant's vehicle.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders, upper back, lower back and wrists. She received 34 chiropractic treatments. At trial, the plaintiff claimed her pain was resolved.

Result

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Other Information

The defendant was awarded costs. The case report was created from information provided solely by defense counsel. Plaintiff's counsel has disputed the case and has stated that the case is being appealed. INSURER: Mercury Insurance Group for defendant.

Deliberation

15 minutes

Poll

12-0

Length

two days


#85796

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

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