Congratulations to Haight Trial Attorneys Steven Scordalakis and Kristine Du for their recent success!
In this auto versus pedestrian case, Plaintiff’s initial demand was $4M, which he subsequently increased to $5M. At mediation, Plaintiff’s opening demand was $6M; and the Parties ended mediation with the last offer being $600k and the last demand being $4.25M. The defense then made a Section 998 offer for $1.2M before starting expert discovery, and Plaintiff made a Section 998 offer for $5.12M the week before trial. At trial, the Defense admitted liability but argued that Plaintiff was comparatively at fault. Plaintiff asked for $6M in damages. The jury awarded $2.3M, but found Plaintiff to be 45% at fault, reducing his award to approximately $1.3M.
The subject incident occurred in a private shopping center known in Sacramento as the Florin Mall. Plaintiff Roosevelt Johnson, Jr. was an incomplete-quadriplegic at the time of the subject incident due to a previous neck injury he sustained in the 1980’s. On the day of the subject incident, Plaintiff was riding his mobility wheelchair westbound in the road (against traffic) toward an intersection. Plaintiff was in the road instead of being on the adjacent sidewalk. Defendant Alexander Soon was driving his Chevy Sonic northbound toward the same intersection. After stopping at the limit line, Mr. Soon looked to his left to observe opposing traffic. He looked to his right (where he did not perceive Plaintiff in the road), and looked left again, after which he initiated his right-hand turn. Mr. Soon hit Plaintiff who was in the road outside the crosswalk causing multiple fractures in Plaintiff’s right leg (open femur fracture, tibia fracture, and two fibula fractures). Plaintiff nearly died as a result of his open femur fracture (and the blood thinner medication he was on due to his pre-existing conditions). At the hospital, Plaintiff underwent 2 ORIF surgeries, and had hardware placed in his femur and tibia. The Parties stipulated that Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were $116k.
Plaintiff added three witnesses to the witness list the day before trial, including (1) Plaintiff’s sister, (2) Plaintiff’s prior in-home care giver, and
(3) Plaintiff’s current in-home care giver. They were to provide testimony about Plaintiff’s complaints and limitations “before and after” the subject incident. The defense moved to exclude these witnesses because they had not been disclosed in discovery. In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the court that Plaintiff had only known about these witnesses a few days before trial and did not intentionally withhold them in discovery. The court permitted the witnesses to testify but allowed the defense to depose them first. Plaintiff’s current and former in-home care givers testified in deposition that Plaintiff had in fact asked them to be witnesses 1-2 years before trial. Based on this testimony, the court allowed the defense to renew its motion to exclude and granted the motion in its entirety.
At trial, Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert Dr. Michael Klein opined that Plaintiff’s fractures healed, and he returned to his pre-incident baseline, within 120 days post-accident. Dr. Klein also opined that Plaintiff’s current complaints were unrelated to the subject accident, and instead, were caused by his pre-existing neck injury and incomplete-quadriplegia. The defense orthopedist Dr. Masoud Ghalambor agreed. The defense physiatrist Dr. Alex Barchuk also agreed and explained to the jury that Plaintiff’s current complaints and physical limitations were a result of degeneration of his prior spinal cord injury, and not the subject incident.
This admitted liability cased focused heavily on Plaintiff’s comparative fault. The defense relied on accident reconstruction expert Robert Snook and human factors expert Todd Springer. There was little to no physical evidence to support a traditional accident reconstruction. So, as a retired CHP Officer and current POST instructor, Mr. Snook’s opinions focused on applicability of the California Vehicle Code (specifically, the requirement that Plaintiff yield to oncoming traffic because he was not in the crosswalk at the time of the accident). Mr. Springer’s opinions focused on explaining why Mr. Soon did not perceive Plaintiff even though Mr. Soon looked to his right before initiating his turn; as well as Plaintiff’s atypical behavior (i.e., riding his wheelchair in the road instead of on the ADA accessible sidewalks). Plaintiff retained accident reconstruction expert James Mason and human factors expert Bong Walsh. Dr. Mason’s opinion was that Mr. Soon had an unobstructed line of sight of Plaintiff when he stopped at the limit line; and Dr. Walsh’s opinions were mostly rebuttal to Mr. Springer. Both Drs. Mason and Walsh refused to concede that it was safer for Plaintiff to be on the sidewalk than in the road, but they both testified that they were wearing “safety vests” during their scene examination any time they went into the road to take pictures.