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
Truck v. Van
Wrongful Death

Estate of Valente Jacquez v. Supershuttle Ontario

Published: Sep. 30, 2006 | Result Date: May 11, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: KC045861 Verdict –  $5,632,410

Court

L.A. Superior Pomona


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas E. Kottler
(Kottler & Kottler)

Gary A. Dordick
(Dordick Law Corporation)


Defendant

Paul A. deLorimier


Experts

Plaintiff

Ted M. Kobayashi
(technical)

Frank A. Perez Ph.D.
(technical)

Peter Formuzis Ph.D.
(technical)

Defendant

Timothy J. Reust
(technical)

Anthony C. Stein Ph.D.
(technical)

Stephanie R. Rizzardi-Pearson
(technical)

Facts

It was raining, as it had been off and on all night, while decedent, Valente Jacquez was driving his truck down the freeway, at about 3 a.m. Pete Rodriguez was also driving down the freeway in the course and scope of his employment for Supershuttle Ontario. The decedent lost control of his truck. It eventually collided with the center divider, and came to rest sideways across the median and left lane. Rodriguez' van approached in the left lane and collided with the truck. The decedent was fatally injured. His wife and four children sued Rodriguez and Supershuttle for negligence.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs claimed that Rodriguez was not paying attention. They claimed that the rain was light at the time of the accident, and that Rodriguez should have seen the decedent's headlight. One of the truck's headlights was smashed when the truck struck the median, but the plaintiffs argued that the other was intact and partially visible.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant claimed that the decedent's truck was not visible. Rodriguez was driving 55 miles per hour, and the van's headlights could only illuminate up to 150 feet ahead of it, thus it argued Rodriguez could not have had enough time to react to the truck's unexpected presence once he saw it.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $1.5 million; the defendant offered $200,000.

Specials in Evidence

$632,408

Damages

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified sum for the loss of society of their husband and father. The family was close-knit. The parents had been married for 25 years. Two children still lived at home, and the remaining two remained close to the family. They celebrated holidays together and took vacations together.

Result

The jury found the decedent 50 percent at fault, and the defendant 50 percent at fault. It calculated the plaintiff's damages at $5,632,408, which was reduced to $2,816,204.

Other Information

The plaintiff was also awarded $276,036 in costs. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied.

Deliberation

one day

Length

seven days


#99816

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

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