Advanced Search

At 12:44 p.m. on August 4, 2005, plaintiff Mercy Zamora, a San Francisco meter maid in her 40s, was driving a three-wheeled vehicle on Harrison Street, toward First Street, when her brakes failed while driving downhill. She was traveling at 22 mph and hit a van that was stopped at the red light on First Street. The force of the impact caused the bottom of the front of the vehicle to be crushed upward while the roof collapsed downward. The steering wheel became lodged into Zamora’s lower abdomen and she was trapped in the vehicle. Emergency workers used the Jaws of Life to free Zamora. She was sent to a hospital with multiple injuries.  Zamora sustained a fractured hand, a fractured knee, a lacerated liver, a lacerated vagina, a pelvic fracture, and a variety of other lacerations. She was in the hospital for six weeks after the accident, and spent another three months in a rehabilitation facility treating the injuries. Zamora sued the manufacturers and distributors of the vehicle, Textron Inc., Providence, R.I.; Ransomes America Corp., Augusta, Ga.; and Cushman Inc., Augusta, Ga.; to recover personal-injury damages. Zamora also filed a negligent manufacturing action against the companies that made and distributed the wheel cylinder on the vehicle, Affinia Group Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., and Brake Parts Inc., McHenry, Ill. Zamora's attorneys argued that Cushman was negligent for not equipping the vehicle with a roll cage, a shoulder harness, or a viable secondary brake, per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Cushman should have equipped it with a dual­master cylinder brake system instead of the singe master cylinder system it had installed. Zamora's attorneys also argued that Affinia/BPI was liable for a manufacturing defect in the wheel cylinder it provided for the vehicle because its failure had caused the entire braking system to fail. They asserted that when the vehicle was inspected after the collision, the Affinia/BPI wheel cylinder was broken. They claimed that since there was a 300-­foot line of brake fluid tracing up the hill from the point of impact, it proved the wheel cylinder had broken and caused the entire brake line to fail. Counsel for Cushman contended that the company wasn’t required to install a dual braking system or a shoulder harness when it built the vehicle in 1992, because it was defined as a motorcycle and therefore satisfied the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The company also claimed that the vehicle was so old when it was in the collision that all of the parts had been replaced by the city, and the Cushman defendants couldn’t be held liable for the failure of parts it didn’t design, manufacture or distribute. Counsel for Affinia/BPI contended that there was no evidence that its wheel cylinder had failed before the collision. Counsel asserted that the damage to the wheel cylinder was consistent with a part that had been damaged in the collision. Counsel for Affinia/BPI argued that the master cylinder had failed and that was why there was a stream of brake fluid leading down to the area where the collision occurred. The defense contended that the city was liable, and it was added to the verdict form. The defense argued that the city’s negligent repair caused the master cylinder to fail and disable the entire brake line before the accident. Counsel referenced a June 2005 repair report that demonstrated that there had been complaints about the brakes, but the mechanic didn’t take any action other than changing a tire on the vehicle, despite its being out of use for about six weeks. Counsel argued that the city had also over­torqued the master cylinder, and that caused the master cylinder to weaken and eventually crack. Zamora's attorneys stated that two feet of Zamora’s intestine had to be removed, and she also sustained a mild brain injury, and developed PTSD and depression. They claimed $295,000 for Zamora’s past medical damages and sought an additional $150,000 for future medical damages because Zamora would require physical therapy once per month as well as ongoing emotional and psychological treatment. Zamora's attorneys also claimed that she was unable to work for the remainder of her life because her IQ was in the low 80s after the collision and she couldn’t perform the tasks of a meter maid. Zamora claimed it took her more than six months to return to walking and one year to walk without crutches. The parties stipulated to $150,000 in past lost earnings and Zamora’s counsel requested more than $1 million for future lost earnings. Noting the damage to Zamora’s ovary, and the limitations on Zamora’s ability to perform physical activities she had previously enjoyed such as running, her attorneys requested unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering. Regarding the allegation that Zamora had suffered a brain injury in the accident, defense counsel argued that Zamora’s IQ had never been tested before the accident so there wasn’t any proof she had become cognitively impaired. The defense claimed that Zamora had performed 90 days of light duty work for the city since the accident and was able to continue working in a sedentary capacity despite some physical limitations. The defense also argued that Zamora wasn’t entitled to recover any future pain and suffering damages because she had been both walking and running for some time before the trial, as evidenced by her completion of a half-­marathon just two weeks before trial. The jury ultimately ruled a mixed verdict. They found the city of San Francisco to be 57.5% negligent, the Cushman company 37.5% negligent, and Zamora 5% negligent. Affinia/Brake Parts Inc. was found 0% negligent. They ultimately awarded Zamora $1,595,000.

  Independent trucker Roberto Tinajero, 52, was doing some extra work at approximately 4:45 PM on July 11, 1995 at the Marine Terminal of Heinz Pet Food on Terminal Island in Los Angeles, California. He was driving a 1984 Ford tractor trailer with a modified fifth wheel to allow rapid connections and disconnections of the chassis. He forgot to disconnect one of two air hoses and drove away. The hose and metal fitting separated from the parked trailer, which forcefully recoiled through the unguarded rear window, striking him in the head. Tinajero subsequently suffered a depressed skull fracture, inflicting mild to moderate brain damage. Roberto Tinajero decided to sue the company that constructed the truck, Dart International, for personal injury. He and his lawyers argued that the truck was defective because it lacked a rear-window barrier guard. They argued that the company was responsible for the defective product as they negligently manufactured this unsafe equipment and did not take steps to add the necessary safety equipment. They further clamed that Heinz Pet Food negligently allowed the unsafe truck to be used at its terminal facility in violation of customs in the industry. The companies' lawyers argued against Tinajero, coldly claiming that the product which injured him was not defective because he was involved in an accident that was "not forseeable." In addition, they contended that they were not responsible because of the truck's modification, which they did not manufacture or install. They discounted their responsibility, stating that the sole cause of Tinajero's serious accident was his own negligence. In the end, the jury sided with Tinajero and his lawyers, awarding him $1,197,885. This amount was reduced to $898,414, however, as he was found 25% liable. This amount was composed of $56,000 of medical expenses, $150,000 of lost income, and $650,000 lost earning capacity.

 

Mr. Davis, a 31-year-old respitory therapist, was riding his motorcycle in Phoenix, Arizona when a vehicle, driven by Mr. Ballecer, drove into his lane, resulting in an accident. Davis stated that he thought that the vehicle was parking on the side of the road when Ballecer suddenly turned left into his lane of traffic, resulting in the accident. Davis suffered severe injuries in the crash, including a closed head injuring resulting in a seizure disorder, a jaw fracture, a fractured orbital bone around the right eye, and a torn pectoral muscle.

Mr. Davis decided to sue Mr. Ballecer for personal injury due to his negligent driving. Mr. Ballecer denied his responsibility, claiming that Davis made an unsafe lane change and failed to make evasive maneuvers to avoid crashing into his vehicle.

Ultimately the jury sided with Mr. Davis. He was found to be 48% negligent, however. His total award was $500,000, which was composed of $48,000 for past medcal expenses, $43,000 for future medical expenses, $49,000 for past lost wages, and $450,000 for future lost wages.

  Robert Graves, 17, was riding his motorcycle down Garfield Avenue in Sacramento County, California on a Saturday night on September 19, 1981 and was trying to find a party accompanied by his friend Ron Strem and his girlfriend, who were riding in a car. Due to Graves's amnesia that resulted from the incident, Strem and others had to reconstruct what happened that night. According to Strem, the two had attended a party at a local park on the afternoon of the accident, gone to a sandwich shop to see a friend, where they had dinner, and met Strem’s girlfriend, who accompanied them as they stopped in at more parties they had heard were to be held that evening. Strem recalls that neither of the young men had consumed any alcoholic beverages during the day or the evening. Ron Strem, and his girlfriend, in his car, and Plaintiff, on his motorcycle, last stopped at a home on Silverstrand Way, and finding no one there that they knew, they decided to split up. Strem ;drove about one­half block, to the dead­end on Silverstrand, turned around, and proceeded westbound on Silverstrand. In the meantime, Graves had gotten on his motorcycle, started it and drove east on Silverstrand toward the dead­-end. According to an eyewitness, Graves accelerated his motorcycle, to at least 40 m.p.h., in the a ­half block distance, and backed off his accelerator just before striking the dead­end divider, but did not hit his brakes. At the end of Silverstrand Way there is a concrete and asphalt divider, six feet wide, which separates the end of Silverstrand Way from Garfield Avenue, which runs perpendicular to Silverstrand. Graves struck the divider, became airborne, and collided with a vehicle which was being driven south on Garfield Avenue. When Graves was found he was not breathing, and had to be revived at the scene through the use of closed heart massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He later had a tracheostomy in the Emergency Room. He suffered brain damage, which manifested itself in loss of short term memory, and has deficits in expression through speech or writing, with a slim chance of improvement. Plaintiff suffered multiple fractures of the hip, pelvis, ribs, clavicle and foot. He was in a coma for eighteen days, lost his spleen, had a flail chest, and is unable to walk without a cane. He was not wearing a helmet, however the defendant's attorney's were not able to use this to prove comparative fault due to the judge's order. Graves argued that there was a dangerous condition of public property, in that the signing on Silverstrand was improper. There was a yellow reflectorized, diamond­-shaped Type N sign at the end of Silverstrand, facing east-bound traffic, and mounted on the divider at the centerpoint of Silverstrand. Graves argued that this sign was improper because it did not clearly notify the driver that the street was coming to an end. It was alleged that, either the the word "END" should have been written on the yellow sign, or it should have been a red reflectorized Type N sign, and that both of the latter signs are more in conformity with the recommendations of the State Traffic Manual than the sign that was used. Graves also argued that, at the last entrance onto Silverstrand, there was no Not a Through Street sign, as recommended by the State Traffic Manual, although its absence was not made known until one and a ­half years after the accident in question, by County investigators. County records show that such a sign was erected some time prior to the accident, and the testimony of the residents of the area do not agree whether or not the sign was missing as of the date of the accident. The County of Sacramento and their lawyers contended that the intersection was well lit, and that the yellow Type N sign was clearly visible for at least three hundred feet prior to the end of the roadway. They also argued that Graves was driving far in excess of the 25 m.p.h. speed limit, that Plaintiff’s driving was impaired by alcohol, and that the road was not dangerous when used with due care. In the end, the jury sided with Graves, who was awarded $854,000. He was found to be 52% at fault, however, and therefore this award had to be reduced to $405,650.