Negligence

San Francisco Injury Lawsuit Arises After Big-Rig Accident, Part 3 of 3

April 27, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendants contested the wrongful death claim as to the parents, and the jury ultimately determined that they were not financially dependent and rejected their wrongful death claim. On the wrongful death claim for the family members, there was a claim for loss of support and loss of household services based upon the industrious nature of decedent. Additionally, there was a claim for loss of financial support in terms of loss of medical insurance benefits. The claim for economic damages was approximately $3 million. Defendants contested the nature and extent of the economic losses, and, through their expert, claimed that the economic losses, once the present cash value analysis by their expert was applied, would result in economic losses of about $1.2 million.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: $3 million economic damages.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff: The matter went through multiple mediations and settlement conferences. Defendant ABC Group, which was insured by XYZ, refused to acknowledge that it had a higher percentage of responsibility than defendant ABC Produce. This insurer insisted on a 50/50 split on any type of allocation, and, therefore, offers being made to plaintiffs. All defendants contested the wrongful death claim of the parents. Plaintiffs filed a statutory demand on the wrongful death case in the amount of $9.9 million as to ABC Group in response to the settlement position taken by defendants. The last settlement offer made by ABC Produce was $750,000. The initial offer made by ABC Group was $1 million and ultimately was increased to $2 million, but that was the last offer ever made by ABC Group. As a result, the statutory demand was made. As to plaintiff Barron Yemming, defendants made a combined offer of $125,000. In response to that, da statutory demand was made as to ABC Group in the amount of $250,000 and as to ABC Produce for $125,000. Both statutory demands were exceeded.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Accident Leads To Death of Church Bus Driver in San Francisco

April 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Merryweather then moved over as far as he could in the right lane toward the center line in an effort to give decedent and the bus as much room as possible.

Defendant Carreon said he never observed this movement or any other type of warning from Merryweather. The two vehicles contacted each other, with the tractor of the ABC Group truck coming into contact with the rear trailer of the ABC Produce vehicle. This caused the two vehicles to become entangled, with the rear trailer swinging out to the right and striking the bus and decedent, killing him instantly.

Plaintiff Barrom Yemming was on the bus at the time of the impact, knew that his uncle was down on the driver’s side and believed he saw him flying through the air. Defendant Carreon made a statement at the scene that for some reason he moved his vehicle to the right and that precipitated the contact. He denied making that statement to the CHP officer at his deposition and during trial.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

San Francisco Big-Rigs Collide Resulting in Wrongful Death To Nearby Bystander, Part 1 of 3

April 13, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On April 17, 2009, decedent Jason Hamm was the operator of a Church bus that ran out of gas and was disabled on the side of southbound Highway 99 between Merced and Fresno, California. The bus was returning from a trip to San Francisco. On the bus were approximately 40 individuals who had made the trip from the church, including plaintiff Barron Yemming, the 17-year-old nephew of decedent. The bus did not have an operating gas gauge, and once it ran out of gas, decedent pulled the bus over to the shoulder area. Diesel fuel was obtained and was put into the vehicle, and decedent was on the driver’s side of the bus priming the diesel engine to get it started. The bus had been on the side of the road for approximately 30 minutes at this point. Decedent was next to the driver’s side of the vehicle for between 5 and 10 minutes.

Defendant Mark Merryweather, employee and operator of a tractor-trailer vehicle owned and operated by defendant ABC Produce, was southbound on Highway 99 traveling 55 mph. He observed the disabled bus and decedent working on the side of the bus and intended to move from the right lane to the passing lane. He looked in his rear-view mirror and observed defendant Reggie Carreon, the driver of a tractor-trailer rig operated by defendant ABC Group, in the passing lane starting a passing maneuver of his last trailer.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Big Rig Runs over Teenager Causing Serious and Life Threatening Injuries, Part 2 of 2

February 14, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

At the time of the accident, ABC was performing a construction contract for the City of Sacramento. Plaintiff alleged that the City knew, or should have known, that the ABC dump truck/trailer was a hazard at certain City intersections, as it could not make an intersectional turn without substantially encroaching into the opposite lane of traffic. Plaintiff further alleged that the City’s contract specifications with ABC Construction required “re-routing” of the contractor’s heavy equipment away from after-school pedestrian routes used by grammar school children.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff sustained life-threatening, near-amputation of his left leg; large right leg laceration; blunt abdominal trauma; repeated orthopedic, neurological, and plastic surgeries.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s past medical bills exceeded $500,000. Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan prepared by Sams & Associates, Rehabilitation and Life Care Planners stated plaintiff’s future medical expenses for “one time” future surgeries were approximately $305,000 at present cost.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Teenager Hit By Big Rig Sues For Negligence, Part 1 of 2

February 7, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff, age 14 at the time of the accident, was walking from his school to tutor a classmate in math. As plaintiff was walking to his friend’s house, Defendant was driving an ABC Construction Services Inc. dump truck weighing 80,000 lbs, hauling a trailer weighing 19,600 lbs, with a “street paver” of unknown weight loaded on the trailer. The combination dump truck/trailer was in excess of 55 feet in length. Defendant was traveling west on Cyprus Street, intending to turn north onto N. Fort Street in the City of Sacramento, California. Both Defendant and his employer, defendant John Sann of ABC, knew from actual experience driving at this particular intersection that the ABC dump truck/trailer combination could not make a northbound turn from westbound Cyprus Street onto northbound Fort Street without encroaching 6 feet into the oncoming southbound traffic lane of Fort Street.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Infection At Sacramento Hospital Leaves Child Severely Injured, Part 4 of 4

August 12, 2009 | by Moseley Collins

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

Defendant’s Opposition Motion cont.

b. The Allegations Do No Support a Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)Based on a Bystander Witness Theory.

The third case relied on by Cindy Jones is Ochoa v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 159. Ochoa is a bystander witness case. Plaintiffs were the surviving parents of Rudy Ochoa, who as an inmate in the Santa Clara County juvenile hall. His parents visited him and found him extremely ill. The mother spoke with authorities, expressing concern that her son was not receiving necessary treatment. His mother was at his bedside and made repeated requests that her son receive medical treatment, including requesting that she be allowed to take him to a private physician. She remained at her son’s bedside. The son died. The Supreme Court held that the mother could assert a cause of action for NIED as a bystander witness because she had personally witnessed the failure of the medical personnel at the juvenile hall to provide medical care to her son. The court further held that the father could not assert the claim because he had not witnessed the lack of care but had only been told of the situation by his wife.

To recover for NIED as a bystander witness, a plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim. (Thing v. LaChusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 667-668.) In Bird v. Saenz, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 920-921, the Supreme Court reiterated the Thing requirement that the plaintiff be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, and contemporaneously be aware that it was causing injury to the victim. In Bird, the plaintiffs were in the waiting room while their mother was negligently operated on, with the result the Bird plaintiffs had no sensory perception whatsoever of the [injury-producing event] at the time it occurred. (28 Cal.4th at p. 917.)

Infected Child From Sacramento Sues Her Doctor, Part 3 of 4

August 9, 2009 | by Moseley Collins

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

Defendant’s Opposition Motion cont.

Burgess v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1064, has no application to this action. Burgess is limited to the question addressed by the Supreme Court: Can a mother recover damages for negligent inflicted emotional distress against a physician who entered into a physician-patient relationship with her for care during labor and delivery if her child is injured during the course of the delivery? (2 Cal.4th at p. 1069.) The court went on to state: Because the professional malpractice alleged in this case breached a duty owed to the mother as well as the child, we hold that the mother can be compensated for emotional distress resulting from the breach of the duty. For public policy reasons that have been previously articulated by this court, however, these damages do not extend to emotional distress due to loss of affection, society, companionship or similar harm that the mother may incur in adjusting to and living with the child’s impairments. (Ibid.) This is not a birth injury case. This is also not a case where a physician or other health care provider has a duty owed to two patients at the same time as a obstetrician does in the case of a delivery. Burgess does not support a claim by Cindy Jones that she can recover damages for exposing her family to a contagious disease.

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 27 Cal.3d 916, also has no application here. There, the family member, the husband of the patient, sued based on the emotional distress he suffered when his wife, following the dictate of the health care provider, informed him that she had a sexually transmitted disease.

Sacramento Physician Sued For Negligence, Part 2 of 4

August 6, 2009 | by Moseley Collins

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

Defendnat’s Opposition Motion cont.

CINDY JONES CANNOT RECOVER FOR ANY ALLEGED LOSS OF HER DAUGHTER’S CONSORTIUM.

It appears that Cindy Jones is attempting to recover damages she allegedly suffered because her daughter became infected. This appears to be a loss of consortium claim. It is well-settled that a parent cannot recover damages for the loss of a child’s consortium. (Baxter v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.3d 461.) The motion to strike should be granted.

CINDY JONES DOES NOT HAVE A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
In the opposition, Cindy Jones asserts that she has a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ( NIED ) because Defendants failed to diagnose, treat and warn Plaintiffs of the impending danger to which she unknowingly exposed family members and the public. Plaintiff relies on Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064; Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916; and Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. These cases do not support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Cindy Jones.

Sacramento Family Sues For Medical Negligence, Part 1 of 4

August 4, 2009 | by Moseley Collins

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

Reply of Defendant Universal Hospital to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
INTRODUCTION.

This action is premised on care rendered to plaintiff Cindy Jones. Cindy Jones contends that Cedars-Sinai and the other defendants provided negligent care to her regarding a bump on her left hand. Cindy Jones alleges that she was negligently notified that she did not test positive for a highly contagious strain of staphylococcus (MRSA), causing her to fail to take precautionary measures and to unknowingly expose her family, including her daughter, the minor plaintiff, Tammy Jones, to the MRSA, resulting in the daughter’s hospitalization. The first cause of action is asserted by Cindy Jones relating to the care she received at Universal Hospital in Sacramento, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, to strike from paragraph 12 of the first cause of action, page 3:27 to page 4:2, of the complaint:

Therein Plaintiff unknowingly exposed her family, including Co-Plaintiff Tammy Jones, and the general public to the highly contagious strain of MRSA, resulting in the infection and hospitalization of Tammy Jones.

These allegations have nothing to do with the claim by plaintiff Cindy Jones for negligence. Cindy Jones is seeking to recover damages for the loss of her daughter’s consortium. Recovery of such damages is precluded by Baxter v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 461. If plaintiff Cindy Jones is trying to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness of the injuries allegedly suffered by her daughter, she has not alleged any facts showing that she had a contemporaneous awareness of any injury at the time it was occurring as required under Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668 and Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 920-921.

Huge Jury Award for California Motorcyclist Who Hit Wild Boar

March 29, 2009 | by Moseley Collins

A Monterey County jury has ordered the state to pay $8.6 million to a motorcyclist who was severely injured when he struck six wild boars on a state highway in 2003. The jury held the state responsible for Adam Rogers’ injuries because officials knew that wild pigs regularly crossing a stretch of Highway 1 just south of the Carmel River were creating a dangerous situation, but they did nothing to address it.

The injured motorcyclist, a male 45-year-old former karate teacher and champion kickboxer, suffered serious injuries and is now confined to a wheelchair. He and his wife sued the California Department of Transportation in Monterey County Superior Court.

The plaintiff argued the state knew the pigs were crossing the road to feed on vegetation in a nearby environmental restoration project. Although not admissible to show responsibility, the state later put up a pig-crossing sign and used hunters to help control the pig population. The plaintiff further argued the state created the situation with the wild boars and then once they created it and saw what was happening they did nothing to stop it.

Most of the $8.6 million award will go toward the plaintiff’s medical bills. The injured motorcyclist requires around-the-clock care and won’t walk again. He said he still suffers from gaps in memory as a result of massive head injuries he suffered when he was thrown from his motorcycle.