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. Bicycle
Wrongful Death

Mary Smith, The Estate of Rodney Smith and Gillian Sickler v. Anthony Lucien Rose

Published: Feb. 27, 2010 | Result Date: Dec. 10, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV467892 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Mateo Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Terry O'Reilly

John P. Kristensen
(Carpenter & Zuckerman)


Defendant

Kevin K. Cholakian
(Cholakian & Associates)

David L. Crowe


Experts

Plaintiff

Mariusz Ziejewski
(technical)

Elliot D. Felman
(medical)

Kenneth Nemire Ph.D., C.PE
(technical)

Erich Horn
(medical)

Robert Lloyd Anderson
(technical)

Michael J. Stephenson
(technical)

Defendant

Rajeev Kelkar Ph.D.
(technical)

William H. Woodruff
(technical)

Alan C. Donelson
(medical)

Michael Reynard
(medical)

Douglas E. Young Ph.D.
(technical)

Facts

On May 25, 2007, Rodney Smith was riding a bicycle on Sand Hill Road when he collided with a vehicle driven by defendant Anthony Rose. Smith and Rose were both traveling eastbound on a windy part of the road, between Interstate 280 and Whiskey Hill Road. It was reported that Rose drifted into the bike lane and knocked Smith 50 to 60 feet. Smith died upon impact from a brain stem injury. Smith's widow and daughter sued Rose.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs alleged motor vehicle negligence and wrongful death. An accident reconstruction expert for the plaintiffs stated that the lack of skid marks indicated that Rose was not immediately aware of what had happened. He also stated that trajectory analysis showed that the vehicle was in the bike lane at the time of the incident. A biomechanics expert for the plaintiffs determined that the angle of the accident supported the theory that the vehicle turned into the bicycle, and not the other way around.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Rose contended that he did not turn or drift into the bike lane, and claimed that Smith made an unexpected U-turn from the lane into traffic, coming into the path of his car. Rose stated that he was going between 30 and 35 mph, when Smith suddenly looked over his left shoulder and turned into traffic, and that Rose had no time to react.

An accident reconstruction expert for the defense stated that the car's broken right headlight, along with the two large round dents in the front, right panel, in addition to damage to the bike, supported Rose's account of the event. Rose also contended that if Rose had hit Smith, the bike would have landed in the embankment, and not the pavement. Rose also argued that the lack of skid marks showed that the vehicle did not dramatically change direction. The report by the California Highway Patrol also supported Rose's claim, citing Smith with a vehicle code violation, and indicating the accident location was where Smith and his wife routinely made U-turns on their way home.

Damages

Smith's widow and daughter sought damages for wrongful death.

Injuries

Smith died as a result of the accident.

Result

The jury reached a verdict for the defense.

Deliberation

12 hours

Poll

9-3

Length

12 days


#90769

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

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