Facts

On March 23, 2007, plaintiff Jared Donoho, a 16-year-old student at Kern Valley High School, appeared for after-school detention. The detention program involved assigning students to assist janitors in cleaning of school property. The plaintiff was directed to clean windows on a school house door that had a broken door closer. While plaintiff was cleaning the door, it slammed closed on his left hand smashing and slicing his index and ring finger and severing the tip of his middle finger.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff graduated from high school and was attempting to enlist in the U.S. Navy. Due to the continued pain in his index and middle finger, the plaintiff contended that he needed scar removal surgery in his index finger and further amputation of the middle finger down to the DIP joint (first knuckle) to eliminate the painful regrowth of the nail. The plaintiff contended that he would continue to suffer pain for the rest of his adult life (58 years) in both his index and middle finger.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants admitted 100 percent liability in the case. The defendant contended that plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by waiting to graduate to have additional nail ablation procedure and that removal of the finger to the DIP joint was not medically necessary.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants filed a C.C.P. Section 998 for $250,000. According to plaintiff's counsel: Plaintiff filed a C.C.P. Section 998 offer for $400,000, and offered to settle for $350,000. According to defense counsel: Plaintiff demanded $450,000.

Specials in Evidence

$41,314 $1,300 $3,900 $28,000

Injuries

The plaintiff had the tip of the middle finger of the non-dominant hand severed, and had surgical repair to the fingers. However, his nail continued to grow through the skin of his middle finger requiring one additional procedure to root out the nail matrix in his finger and a future surgery to address the same problem.

Result

Verdict for plaintiff for $369,000.

Other Information

The defendant attempted to unilaterally force workers' compensation coverage on plaintiff, which was rejected by plaintiff's counsel. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that because the student was working in after school detention that he was subject to the workers' compensation system and should be barred from recovery. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the basis that the "in loco parentis" relationship of the school to student does not convert to an employer/employee relationship for purposes of chores performed for detention/discipline, rejecting defense arguments based on the Arriaga case. FILING DATE: Jan. 8, 2008.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

12-0 (past and future medicals), 9-3 (damages)

Length

four days