Facts

On the morning of March 11, 2005, the intersection of Bethel and Manning in Fresno was covered in fog, limiting visibility to approximately 150 feet. Plaintiff Hector Sanchez, 22, a student, was driving a vehicle eastbound on Manning, a street not controlled by stop signs. Defendant Jorge Molina was driving a tractor-trailer northbound on Bethel and stopped at the stop sign at the intersection with Manning. When Molina proceeded, his trailer's rear wheel collided with Sanchez's vehicle. Not long after, a truck operated by defendant Juan Contreras going eastbound on Manning collided with the rear of Sanchez's vehicle, which was still at the scene of the collision. This second collision pushed Sanchez's vehicle underneath Molina's trailer. Sanchez sued Molina, Molina's employer Adonis Transport, Contreras, and Contreras' employer Donald P. Dick Air Conditioning for vehicle negligence. Contreras and his employer settled with Sanchez for $250,000 prior to trial.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Sanchez contended that he applied his breaks but was unable to avoid a collision with Molina. He had been driving at 37 miles an hour, which according to experts was a safe speed to be traveling. The impact with Molina's 71 foot truck tore the upper, or shoulder, belt off his vehicle's safety belt and propelled Sanchez into the upper windshield striking it with the left side of his face, at or about the orbit area of his eye and nose.

According to plaintiff's counsel: Sanchez proved that Molina's truck should not have been driven, since he was in violation of 49 CFR Section 392.14 (hazardous weather conditions); Vehicle Code Section 35401(b) and (e), of being over 65 feet in length and not being on a proper truck route; and Fresno County Regulations of driving a vehicle over 65 feet on a county road that did not have an approved truck route, nor had Molina nor Adonis ever applied for a valid truck route permit. Additionally, Sanchez's experts stated that Molina should have parked the vehicle on the side of the road and waited for the fog to clear, or turned right at the intersection. Sanchez further argued that Molina was in violation of Vehicle Code Section 21802(a), and that Molina could not establish that he could cross the intersection with reasonable safety.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Molina contended that he exercised due care when he rolled down his window and determined that it was safe to enter the intersection before his collision. Molina claimed that Sanchez was driving too fast for the conditions and that the collision would have occurred regardless had the truck met the statutory limits and had the proper permit been issued. Molina and Adonis Transport claimed that Sanchez's fractured orbit was the result of the subsequent collision with Contreras, and that Sanchez did not have brain injury.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $124,999 via C.C.P. Section 998. Defendants offered $10,000 via C.C.P. Section 998.

Specials in Evidence

$41,014; $112,422.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $650,000 for pain and suffering.

Injuries

After being taken to an emergency room by ambulance, Sanchez was diagnosed with a fractured left orbit, a deviated septum, and mild traumatic brain injury. Two weeks later, he had surgery for the fractured orbit. The brain injury, he claimed, hindered his ability to process new information, concentrate on problems, retain memory, and execute functioning, thus hindering his college study of engineering, which would result in lowered grades and prolonging his studies from two years to five. The brain injury, he claimed, will require cognitive retraining and daily medication for life to help him focus and concentrate. He claimed that processing new information was and will continue to be difficult. Also, Sanchez claimed that future surgery for his septum would be necessary.

Result

The jury found that Molina was negligent, but that his negligence did not cause Sanchez's injuries.

Other Information

Plaintiff's motion for new trial and JNOV were denied. Plaintiff has appealed. Plaintiff's motion to tax or strike costs was granted in part denying all of defendant's expert witness fees. Defendants have appealed the taxing of defense expert witness costs.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

9-3 (liability), 10-2 (damages)

Length

nine days