Advanced Search

Motorcyclist and his lawyers win his case against Saudi Arabian Airlines and Budget Rent-a-Car after he suffers severe injuries, awarding him $984,524

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Tuesday, January 26, 1993
Result Date: 
Friday, March 3, 1995
Monetary Result: 
$984,254
  On January 26, 1993, John Randolph was riding his motorcycle west on the Pacific Coast Highway in the right lane. Fahad Abdullah Maghrabi, an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines, was stopped on Corral Canyon waiting to turn onto the highway to drive east. According to a police report, Maghrabi, who was driving a rental car from Budget Rent-A-Car, did not see Randolph coming and proceeded into the highway, causing a collision between Randolph's motorcycle and his car. The police report stated that Maghrabi was at fault due to his failure to yield to oncoming traffic. As a result of the accident Randolph suffered extensive injuries. He suffered severe injuries to his left knee that ultimately lead to an artificial knee replacement. He additionally suffered injuries his pelvis, leading to sexual dysfunction. Randolph and his wife, Johanne Randolph, sued Maghrabi's employer, Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Budget Rent-a-Car for motor vehicle negligence, as Maghrabi failed to yield to traffic. He sued due to his expenses and lost wages resulting from his injuries, and his wife sued due to the loss of a spousal relationship (loss of consortium) with her husband. The defending parties' lawyers admitted that Maghrabi was negligent, and that Randolph did not contribute to the cause of the accident. The court ruled that since Maghrabi was doing an assignment from his employer and that he was the driver permitted to use the rented vehicle, that his employer Saudi Arabian Airlines was liable for the injuries and other damages that resulted from his negligence. Both side's lawyers brought expert medical witnesses to the stand. The court found that Randolph's doctors provided more compelling testimony. Randolphs lawyers' brought his primary care doctor, who had treated him for nine years, to the stand, stating that his injuries were sustained in the accident. The defendants' doctor, who had only seen Randolph in one visit, argued otherwise. The court found that Randolph's expert medical witness' testimony was more compelling than that of the defendants'. Ultimately the court sided with the Randolphs, awarding them $984,254. Saudi Arabian Airlines was liable for a total of $914,254 to John Randolph. Budget's maximum liability of $15,000 was also awarded to him. The loss of consortium to his wife, Johanne Randolph, was aportioned at $55,000, $40,000 of liability from Saudi Ariabian Airlines, and $15,000 from Budget. John Randolph was found by the court to be entitled to $164,254 of special damages, including $115,646 for past medical expenses, $33,750 for future medical expenses, $8,858 for past income, and $6,000 for future income. He was also found to be entitled to $750,000 for general damages, including $200,000 for past sexual dysfunction and $50,000 for future sexual dysfunction. This total also included $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $150,000 for future pain and suffering associated with the knee replacement. and $50,000 for other future pain and suffering. The award of $40,000 general damages to his wife consisted of $30,000 for past lost consortium, and $10,000 for future lost consortium.

Deceased motorcyclist's parents and their lawyers win their case against a laundry company after one of their drivers struck and killed their son

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Monday, February 1, 1988
Result Date: 
Saturday, December 1, 1990
Monetary Result: 
$850,000

Mr. Martin, a 23-year-old airline baggage clerk was riding his motorcycle in February, 1988 when it collided with a laundry delivery truck owned by Peerless Laundry making a left turn into Martin's path. Mr. Martin died as a result of the accident.

Martin's parents decided to sue the laundry company for the wrongful death of their son. During the trial, it was revealed that the driver at the time was actually an accounts-payable clerk who happened to be filling in as a driver that day. Martin's parents and their lawyers argued that the laundry company was negligent in using an untrained employee as a driver, and that the driver was searching for an address at the time of the accident. They produced witnesses that stated that their son was driving within the speed limit with his headlight on at the time of the crash.

The dendant laundry company contended that the driver was not negligent. They argued that Martin was driving over 100 MPH at the time of the crash without his headlight on.

In the end, the jury sided with Martin's parents and their lawyers, awarding them $850,000.