Severe Brain Injury and Physical Impairments Result in Sacramento Lawsuit, Part 4 of 4

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The jury ultimately found that Danbee Livestock’s employee’s lax trailer maintenance schedule and its failure to keep maintenance records were dispositive in deciding that only Danbee Livestock was at fault for the trailer’s loss of its wheel.


According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff One sustained skull and facial fractures, permanent brain injury, primarily to his frontal lobe, a broken clavicle, fractures to all ribs on his right side, at least one collapsed lung, a diaphragm puncture, a lacerated kidney, right elbow fracture, and a fractured pelvis. He had to be airlifted from the accident scene to HIJ Hospital in Sacramento. His elbow and pelvic fractures were beyond the capabilities of HIJ orthopedists, and he was only stable enough for transfer to a hospital where these surgeries could be performed three weeks after the accident. His pelvic and elbow injuries have rendered him permanently totally disabled, and his brain injury detrimentally affects his ability to function day to day. He requires future surgery for hardware removal and life-long moderate case management. Plaintiff Two sustained left shoulder fractures and a left rotator cuff tear which required surgery. He was rendered permanently partially disabled and cannot lift more than 5 lbs above his shoulder, more than 25 lbs off the ground, or push/pull more than 50 lbs. Other than some trigger point injections, further treatment will not benefit him. He also sustained a mild-to-moderate head injury, which resulted in erratic behavior and irritability and for which he requires limited neuropsychological treatment. Plaintiff Two: Loss of consortium. Other than the defense claim that plaintiff One was solely at fault for his brain injuries due to his failure to wear an adequate helmet, and that plaintiff Two sustained no permanent brain injury, the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries was not contested.

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


According to Plaintiff: Plaintiffs’ business expert Chan opined that plaintiffs’ auto-wrecking yard was a viable business, despite their short-term operation of it. Defense expert Neddy opined that the business was doomed to failure prior to the accidents. The jury was ultimately dissatisfied with plaintiffs’ inability to resent evidence of the business’s profitability prior to their purchase of it in 2005 and limited its damage award on that basis.

Verdict/Judgment: Plaintiff
Verdict/Judgment Amount: $3,600,000
Trial Type: Jury
Trial Length: 17 days.
Deliberations: 6 hours.

Jury Poll: Mixed poll.

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

Contact Information