Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 56)
employee of John J. Kirlin, Inc. (the me- chanical subcontractor) ran him over with a material handler. As a result of this, Mr. Deabreu suffered multiple displaced frac- tures in his left foot, soft tissue injuries in his right knee, serious urethral abrasion resulting in blood and pain upon urina- tion, and numerous lacerations and abrasions. Mr. Deabreu required surgery to set the bones in his foot and two sepa- rate week-long hospitalizations. At the time of this occurrence, Mr.
Deabreu was 23-years-old and earned approximately $21,000 as an electrical apprentice and member of the Electrician’s Union. As a further result of this injury, Mr. Deabreu has developed arthritis in his left foot and he is no longer able to work as an electrician. He has, however, secured other employment. As a result of the disparity in wages
between an electrician and the job Mr. Deabreu currently holds, the total future lost wages presented to the jury were ap- proximately $750,000.00. Past lost wages were approximately $87,000.00 and medical expenses were approximately $30,000.00.
Allegations of Liability: Plaintiff alleged that the driver of the material handler was negligent in failing to see the plaintiff and take precautions to avoid injuring him.
Injuries and Damages: Plaintiff claimed past lost earnings of approximately $87,000.00, future lost earnings of over $750,000.00 and medical expenses of over $30,000.00
Plaintiff ’s Witnesses: William Daley (Ac- cident Reconstruction) Annapolis, MD; Charles Greene (Construction Site Safety) Washington, DC; Lloyd Scribner, M.D. (Orthopedic Surgery) Takoma Park, MD
Defense Witnesses: James Callan, M.D., (Orthopedic Surgery) Takoma Park, MD; Elizabeth Wheeler (Construction Safety) Arlington, VA
Verdict/Settlement: Past Medicals: $30,844; Past Lost Earnings $87,481.00; Future Lost Earnings $514,223.00; Past & Future Benefits $32,538.00; Non-eco- nomic Damages $700,000.00; Total $1,365,076.00 (cut to $1,195,076 due to cap)
Special Remarks: The defendants in this
case attempted to use the classic “blame the victim” defense. Plaintiff was able to rebut this defense by showing that, al- though he did not see the material handler prior to this incident, his actions indicated that he did nothing wrong and that no safety standards and/or regulations were violated by his actions. To the contrary, plaintiff was able to show that defendant driver operated his material handler in an unreasonable and dangerous manner and should have seen the plaintiff prior to turning the vehicle.
Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Sidney Schupak (MTLA Member) Ashcraft & Gerel, Washington, DC
Defense Counsel: Tom Ryan, McCarthy, Wilson & Ethridge
________
Jane Doe v. Store Wide Delivery, et al. No. CAL99-10733
58 Trial Reporter
Facts: On August 16, 1996 Jane Doe was travelling northwest on the outer loop of Interstate 495 just prior to the 495/95 North split. The plaintiff was in an auto- mobile in the far right lane. Defendant, Wolf, was in an automobile directly to the plaintiff ’s left and Defendant, Store Wide Delivery, was a tractor trailer immediately to the left of defendant, Wolf. All three lanes were designated to split onto Inter- state 95. Defendant, Wolf, alleged that the defendant, Store Wide Delivery, pulled into his lane causing him to pull into the Plaintiff ’s lane resulting in her pulling on to the shoulder where she went out-of-control and went under the trailer of the tractor trailer.
witness stated that the tractor trailer never left its lane of travel prior to impact and that defendant, Wolf, forced the plaintiff onto the shoulder resulting in her going out-of control. The parties stipulated to baseball high/low with a guarantee of $100,000.00 if the defendants were suc- cessful and $750,000 if the plaintiff were successful on liability against one or both defendants. After a one-day trial on li- ability the jury deliberated 45 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, Wolf only. Judgement was immediately entered in the amount of $750,000.00 for the plain- tiff. Defendant, Wolf ’s, Motion for New Trial was denied.
Allegations of Liability: Defendant, Wolf, alleged that the defendant, Store Wide Delivery, pulled into his lane caus- ing him to pull into the Plaintiff ’s lane
Summer 2002
An independent
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68