Auto Accidents

Auto v. Truck: $250,000.00 (Arbitration Award)

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a 32 year old title assistant/administrative secretary, was driving a Nissan Sentra on a major California highway when the left rear tire of her vehicle was clipped by a double tractor-trailer changing lanes, causing the plaintiff’s vehicle to suddenly cross over several lanes of freeway. The plaintiff’s vehicle subsequently struck the center divider. The plaintiff’s husband was driving a car directly behind defendant trucking company’s tractor-trailer, and witnessed the accident involving his wife. The plaintiffs contended that the truck driver changed lanes into the plaintiff’s vehicle and asserted negligence, respondeat superior, and loss of consortium claims. The defendants contended that the plaintiff saw the defendant’s truck in the process of a lane change and sped up and tried to pass the truck before the lane change was complete. The defendants also contended that the plaintiff’s injuries were exaggerated. The plaintiff suffered a 1-2 mm bulging disc resulting in the need for future surgery.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Truck- $300,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a three year old boy, was injured while his mother was driving east on the 91 freeway. The vehicle in front of them stopped suddenly and the Defendant rear-ended their vehicle, causing the plaintiff to be ejected from the car seat in which he was riding. Plaintiff contended that defendant was driving too fast for the conditions. Plaintiff argued that there was no comparative liability by the Plaintiff’s mother because the child had been secured in the car seat, and the alleged incorrect positioning of the car seat was not related to the injury. The Defendant argued that the sudden unnecessary stopping of the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s was responsible for the multi-vehicle collision. The plaintiff’s car seat was a rear facing infant seat that had been placed in the forward facing position, and Plaintiff exceeded the weight and size specifications. Defendant contended that the child’s weight and the incorrect positioning of the car seat caused the ejection and head injury. The plaintiff claimed a head injury, requiring surgery and residuals of slight hyperactivity consistent with frontal lobe injury.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Pedestrian v. Auto: $250,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a 44 year old sushi maker, was a pedestrian at an intersection, when the defendant driver made a right turn and hit the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that she had a walk signal, and the defendant made an unsafe right turn on a red light. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not in the crosswalk , and that the defendant had no opportunity to avoid hitting her. The plaintiff suffered a brain injury, requiring bilateral craniotomies and a partial lobectomy.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Auto- Dangerous Roadway: $390,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff driver, a 39 year old woman, was driving her Toyota Corolla on Interstate 10 in Riverside County. The other two plaintiffs were seat belted passengers, ages 50 and 70 years old. Plaintiff was driving in the #1 lane at 55-60 m.p.h. (the speed limit was 70 m.p.h.) It was raining and the roadway was wet. Plaintiff lost control of her vehicle and it spun out of control, coming to rest upside down on the center median completely outside any lanes of traffic. The parties crawled out of the broken windows of the car and were standing by it. Defendants driver was travelling at 65 m.p.h. when he saw plaintiff’s vehicle. He applied the brakes in an effort to slow down. His vehicle spun out of control, and skidded into the center median, where his vehicle struck plaintiffs. There were no warnings of any kind to indicate that water was collecting in this traffic lane. All witnesses confirmed that plaintiff’s vehicle was completely out of the traffic lanes when it was hit by defendant driver, and that the defendant driver’s vehicle spun out of control from the #1 lane and slid sideways into the plaintiffs and their vehicle in the center median. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant driver was driving too fast for the wet roadway conditions and that the water collecting on the freeway due to a defective road drainage constituted a dangerous roadway of which the state had notice from a prior condition. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were travelling to fast for the roadway conditions. Plaintiff driver suffered a right tibia/fibula fracture which required an open reduction internal fixation surgery and soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulder and back. Plaintiff passenger #1 suffered a fractured left pelvis, soft tissue injuries, lacerations, and contusions. Passenger #2 sustained a fracture of the left ankle, a severe ulceration of the left leg, a severe laceration of the left ear, and various soft tissue injuries and contusions.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Motorcycle v. Auto: $650,000.00 (Jury Verdict)

03.27.13

Plaintiff was travelling on a motorcycle in Palm Spring. When Plaintiff was approximately 100 feet from the intersection, the light for his direction of travel changed from red to green, and Plaintiff went from decelerating to accelerating. Plaintiff observed a white SUV that was proceeding in the opposite direction as him, and Plaintiff caught a glimpse of Defendant’s vehicle coming into the intersection against the light. Defendant failed to stop for the red light at the intersection. Due to the close proximity of plaintiff to the intersection, and in an attempt to avoid the accident, Plaintiff downshifted and put on his brakes. The motorcycle started to go down on the right and then upright and went down on the left and slid some 53 feet to the intersection. The witnesses in the white SUV testified that Plaintiff had the green light , and that the motorcycle skid as the Plaintiff did everything he could to avoid the accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered severe and disabling injuries, including a fracture of his left femur close in proximity to the area of his prosthetic left hip, and was in the hospital for 33 days. He was then hospitalized for 5 days for fever and pain in his left leg. A few months after the accident, Plaintiff was again readmitted to the hospital with an infection in his left hip, which required it to be removed. He went on to have 7 surgeries in 200 for infection of the hip, including several irrigations and debridgments of the bone and tissue. For a period of more than 8 months, Plaintiff suffered with a large open wound in the hip that had to be cleaned and dressed several times a day. At the time of the trial, plaintiff was without a left hip and unable to bear weight on his left leg. Plaintiff had a separate medical malpractice lawsuit against the Doctor, in which Plaintiff contended that the Doctor failed to timely treat the hip infection.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Auto: $650,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was waiting in the left turn lane of northbound Riverside Avenue at the intersection with Ayala Drive in Rialto, California, when the vehicle was in was struck in the rear by a stolen vehicle. The traffic collision report stated that Plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and severe personal injuries. Defendant disputed liability in this case and the nature and extent of the injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Auto: $480,000.00 (Plus $30,000.00 Settlement and $36,889.63 in Costs) (Jury Verdict)

03.27.13

Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was southbound on the I-15 freeway in the County of San Bernardino, when the vehicle she was in was struck in the rear by a 2004 Lincoln Navigator driven by defendant. The impact caused a chain reaction of collisions, as Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed into the car in front of her, who was then pushed into the car in front of it, and the accident ultimately involved five vehicles. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant was negligent, and that as a result of the severe forces involved in the impact she sustained injuries to her lower back with radiating pain into the lower extremities which resulted in a lumbar fusion of L4-L5. Plaintiff also sustained injuries to her neck, left shoulder, arm and wrist. Defendant disputed liability in this case and the nature and extent of the injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Dangerous Roadway- Pedestrian v. Auto: $515,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a 16 year old female student was walking to her grandmother’s home after school, when she was struck by a station wagon driven by an unlicensed driver.  Plaintiff suffered a tibia & fibula fracture, orbit fracture, pelvis fracture, and closed head injury that caused depression and diminished cognitive ability. Plaintiff sued Defendant City for a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to Government Code Sec 835 and the Driver for negligence. Plaintiff contended that the City created a dangerous condition on the road by fencing off a pre-existing dirt path previously used by pedestrians to gain protected access to a bridge. Plaintiff contended that the fencing forced pedestrians to walk on the roadway surface in order to  gain access to the bridge.  Plaintiff also contended that Defendant City failed to warn pedestrians that they would be forced to walk close to the roadway edge. Defendant City denied any dangerous condition existed, pointing to the lack of other accidents on the road. Defendant City contended that proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries was the defendant driver, who was engaged in an argument with the occupants of the vehicle next to him when his vehicle struck plaintiff. Defendant City also contended that plaintiff should have walked on the other side of the street where there was a pedestrian sidewalk. Defendant City further contended that at the area of impact the roadway was the width of a standard roadway and sidewalk combined. Defendant City provided expert testimony that if a sidewalk had been in place the Defendant Driver’s vehicle would still have jumped the sidewalk and plaintiff would still have been struck. Plaintiff recovered $500,000.00 from City of Long Beach; $15,000.00 (Policy Limits) from Defendant Driver.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Pedestrian v. Auto: $7,284,000.00* ($1,400,000.00 Cash Plus Expected Structured Payments of $5,884,406.00)

01.21.13

Plaintiff was crossing a major intersection in the early morning hours when he was struck by a vehicle, resulting in brain injury. Defendant contended that plaintiff had elevated blood alcohol level, drug levels, and was darting across roadway in dark clothing. Plaintiff successfully demonstrated that defendant had adequate opportunity to see plaintiff and avoid the collision.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Truck- Brain Injury: $2,390,328.80 Cash Plus Expected Structured Payments

01.21.13

Plaintiff, an 18 year old male, suffered catastrophic brain injury when the vehicle he was driving at a speed of between 78-83 mph in a 45 mph zone struck the side of defendant’s vehicle as it exited a private driveway. Plaintiff’s vehicle left 312 feet of locked wheel skid. Defendants contended that plaintiff had alcohol in his system over the legal limit as evidenced in 2 blood tests. Initially suit had to be brought to enforce benefits under health insurance policy so that plaintiff could receive health insurance policy benefits. Settlement reflected insurance policy limits.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.