Fred Deome v. Homewood Truss Inc.
Published: Jul. 26, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 14, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCV07748 Verdict – $586,674
Judge
Court
Placer Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Christopher F. Wohl
(Palmer, Kazanjian, Wohl & Hodson LLP)
Defendant
Facts
On March 27, 1998, plaintiff Fred Deome was building single-family homes in Rocklin. The plaintiff had been a
licensed general contractor for over 30 years and was the proprietor of DeomeÆs Construction. Defendant
Homewood Truss Components Inc. was responsible for manufacturing, delivering and setting roof trusses on
the Rocklin project.
Prior to delivering trusses from the boom-truck to the roof line of a home, defendant Homewood admits that it
"disabled" a spring-loaded safety latch with wire. The safety latch was located on a hook attached to the boom-
truck cable and was intended to prevent trusses from slipping. After disabling the safety latch, Homewood
drivers were able to deliver trusses by what they called a "trick" maneuver.
The trick maneuver was allegedly dangerous because it required disabling the safety latch with a wire.
Homewood used the trick maneuver instead of using a "spotter" who would have manually pushed the safety
latch back to release the trusses from the boom cable.
On March 27, 1998, Homewood boom truck driver Bobby Sinnott delivered a load of trusses from his boom-
truck to the roof line of a home that the plaintiff was working on by using the self-described trick maneuver.
The safety-latch was disabled with a wire. In the process of using the trick maneuver, Sinnott allegedly
knocked the plaintiff from the roof line.
The plaintiff purportedly landed headfirst on the concrete pad 15 feet from where he was last standing. The
plaintiff sustained a scalp laceration, a severe concussion, a lacerated forearm and will have seizures for the
rest of his life. Despite the fact that the plaintiff did not suffer any injuries to his feet, ankles or legs, defendant
Homewood claimed that the plaintiff lost his balance, jumped and was responsible for his own injuries.
The defendant denied that the plaintiff was knocked from the roof line by the use of the trick maneuver. In its
defense, defendant Homewood called Sinnott, co-employee and SinnottÆs cousin Richard Slocum and Steve
Brockway who works for a company owned by the President of Homewood Truss Inc.
Each witness testified that on the day of the accident few days later or the following day,
the plaintiff admitted that he lost his balance and jumped and that he would not sue Homewood.
There were no witnesses to these alleged admissions and the plaintiff denied ever making such
statements. These statements were also never memorialized. Homewood did not prepare a
report of the accident until six months later. Moreover, the three Homewood witnesses never
reported the alleged admissions to anyone at Homewood until after the litigation started.
Injuries
As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered a scalp laceration, a severe concussion, a lacerated forearm and will have seizures for the rest of his life.
Deliberation
six hours
Poll
11-1 (defendant was negligent), 11-1 (causation in favor of the plaintiff), 12-0 (no comparative fault on the plaintiff's part)
Length
three days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390