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

Adrian J. Kruse v. George Nikolaou Charos

Published: Aug. 5, 2006 | Result Date: Mar. 8, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG04179972 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven L. Derby
(The Derby Law Firm)


Defendant

Keith R. Schirmer
(Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Edward Rosen
(medical)

Ronald M. Arlas
(Law Offices of Ronald M. Arlas) (medical)

R.J. Tikker
(medical)

Robert Cluff
(medical)

Carlisle Holland
(medical)

Defendant

Toby Gloekler
(technical)

Bahram Ravani
(technical)

David C. Bradshaw M.D.
(medical)

Lawrence S. Nordhoff
(technical)

Fred D. Youngswick
(medical)

Dr. Charles DiRaimondo
(medical)

Facts

In January 2003, plaintiff Adrian Kruse was driving northbound on Potter Street in Berkeley. Defendant George Charos was driving behind her. The plaintiff stopped near a freeway on-ramp, and defendant rear-ended her. The plaintiff brought an action for negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to stop, and was therefore 100 percent negligent. Further, defendant was not paying attention and driving too fast. Plaintiff asserted that she properly stopped to yield to potential traffic.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff was at fault, as she stopped abruptly without purpose. Further, she was not paying attention and was driving carelessly.

Settlement Discussions

There was a $100,000 demand and a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $40,000.

Specials in Evidence

Plaintiff sought $37,735. Plaintiff claimed $13,700 for future foot surgery.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed an unspecified amount to cover pain and suffering.

Injuries

The plaintiff sustained injuries to her back, neck and right foot. She underwent treatment with a pain management specialist. She also sought physical therapy, and was referred to a podiatrist who performed surgery on her foot. Plaintiff claimed that the pain in her neck and back continued, and that she will have a permanently altered gait due to her foot pain. She asserted that she will require either a joint fusion or toe implant on her right big toe. The defendants claimed that plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing, and that the plaintiff's injuries from a 1998 slip-and-fall accident still caused her problems. Further, the collision occurred at a low rate of speed and could not have caused her any harm. According to the defense biomechanics expert, the forces of impact were insufficient to result in injury.

Result

The jury determined that defendant was negligent. However, his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

12-0 (on negligence); 9-3 (on causation)

Length

15 days


#92569

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

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