Advanced Search
Shannon Nielson, 38, and her lawyers win her case against a trucking company after she and her fiance were involved in a crash with a truck, taking the life of her fiance and causing her serious injuries
Accident Type:
Motorcycle AccidentIncident Date:
Friday, September 23, 2005Result Date:
Tuesday, March 3, 2009Monetary Result:
$775,361Topics:
Court:
Orange County Superior CourtOn September 23, 2005, Shannon Nielson, a 38-year-old hairstylist, was riding on the back of a motorcycle that her fiance, Troy McDaniel, was driving on the Mt. Rose Highway in the Sierra Nevada range of California. As they were riding on the highway, they came across a flatbed truck operated by Carl McAlister, an employee of the White Cap Construction Supply company. McDaniel grounded the motorcycle to avoid striking the truck, which was making a U-turn on the two-lane highway. The couple skidded on the pavement towards the truck and were run over by its rear wheels. McDaniel died within the hour, however Nielson survived with injuriesto her pervic bone and her wrist. She was bedridden for three weeks and later used a walker and then crutches.
Nielson, McDaniel's estate, and his parents decided to sue McAlister and his employer, and its corporate owner, Home Depot USA, Inc. Ten months before the trial, however, McDaniel's parents agreed to a confidential settlement with Home Depot, and were voluntarily dismissed from the trial.
Nielson was therefore left as the only plaintiff at the trial. She and her lawyers argued that she and her fiance were traveling at approximately 40 MPH uphill and approached a slight curve. After taking the curve, she reported that she saw a truck positioned across the highway. As her fiance grounded the bike, they were propelled across the pavement into the truck. Subsequently, the trucks rear tires drove over McDaniel's chest and over her right hip.
The defendants admitted liability on the first day of trial.
Nielson claimed emotional distress at the thought of her open reduction surgery and the trauma related to the moments preceding the accident and at the time of the impact. In addition, the screws placed in her hip caused persistent irritation. As a yoga enthusiast, she can no longer perform certain poses, and the permanent discomfort of her right wrist has cause her difficulty in performing her work as a hairstylist. She therefore sought compensation for her medical expenses, loss of income, and emotional damages.
In the end, the jury ruled in favor of Nielson. She was awarded $775,361.
Truck driver and his lawyers win his case against Mitsubishi after he is thrown from the cab of a defective truck in Los Angeles, California
Accident Type:
Truck AccidentIncident Date:
Monday, January 1, 1996Result Date:
Monday, June 15, 1998Monetary Result:
$1,250,150Topics:
Juan Salas Fonseca, a 28-year-old route salesman, was operating a Mitsubishi F-100 cab-over-engine commercial truck when he was involved in an accident. In the course of the collision, he was thrown from the detached cab through the windshield and was run over by his own truck. He suffered extensive injuries, including multiple fractures to his pelvis, spine, and leg. He faced future surgies to replace his hip and his spine and was therefore limited to semi-sedentary work.
Fonseca decided to sue the manufacturer of his truck, Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America Inc., and the distributor of his truck, Diamond Sales and Service Inc., which sold the truck to his employer. He and his lawyers argued that the truck had a defect in the design of the latching system, as it could be bypassed yet give the appearance of being properly secured to the chassis. They also alleged that the cab-open warning light was improperly positioned and that the secondary saftey catch was insufficient under the circumstances. They further claimed that ther should have been an interlock which would prevent vehicle movement unless the cab was properly secured.
Mitsubishi the distributors denied their liability, coldly allegating that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of Fonseca and his employer.
Both parties brought mechanical engineers and doctors as expert witnesses.
In the end, the jury sided with Fonseca and his lawyers, awarding him $1,250,150. This included $86,757 for past medical expenses, $249,780 for future medical expenses, $82,749 for past income, and $800,026 for future income. He also recieved worker's compensation benefits of $137,801.
It was decided, however, that 30% of the liability was due to Fonseca's negligence in not wearing a seatbelt, and 30% to the employer who did not ensure that the cab was properly latched, even though the expert testimony demonstrated the defect in the latching system. His total award was therefore reduced to $737,304.
Los Angeles trucker and his lawyers win their case against Dart International company after he suffers brain damage from faulty equipment
Accident Type:
Truck AccidentIncident Date:
Tuesday, July 11, 1995Result Date:
Wednesday, June 3, 1998Monetary Result:
$1,197,885Topics:
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.
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 AccidentIncident Date:
Tuesday, January 26, 1993Result Date:
Friday, March 3, 1995Monetary Result:
$984,254Topics:
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.