Posted on 03/08/2010 9:02:26 PM PST by SmithL
A Sacramento Superior Court jury has awarded a local-record $24.3 million in personal injury damages to a 14-year-old Oregon girl who was run over by a truck driven by her father six years ago.
The 10-woman, two-man panel made the damages award Friday in a case where Judge David W. Abbott in December already had found Freeway Transport, Inc., of Portland, liable for the injuries sustained November 2004 by Diana Luleidy Loza-Jimenez.
"We're thrilled to see that the jury appreciated the full magnitude of Diana's injuries," plaintiff's lawyer Robert A. Buccola said in an interview today. "She faces at least a dozen future surgeries and a life of serious disrepair."
Buccola and partner Steven M. Campora sued on the basis that Freeway Transport, an ancillary firm of the Oregon-based United Salad Co., acted as a "common carrier" that bore legal responsibility for hauling the load safely.
The jury awarded the girl $2.2 million for her past medical expenses, $2.1 million in future economic damages, $8 million for past non-economic losses such as pain and suffering and $12 million for future noneconomic losses.
The $24.3 million award is the largest personal injury award in Sacramento County history, . . .
Ottoson said the defense was precluded from telling the jury that the girl's father was driving the truck that injured her.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
the defense was precluded from telling the jury that the girl's father was driving the truckWhiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?!?!
It’s called “deep pockets”.
Go after the party with the money.
Can the trucking company sue the driver to mitigate its own losses?
Hmm....I know a kid that’s kind of a pain in the ass and for $23 Mil I’d drive to Sacramento just to run him over. Split the deal 50/50 and it’s all good as far as I’m concerned!
Had I been there, I would have wondered why the driver wasn’t named in the suit.
Is this frigging for real???
It must be! Its commiefornica!
That could be an interesting consequence of this. Daughter gets this big fortune in trust, but father is bankrupted. Wonder what the insurance arrangements on the truck were.
Now we see another reason why nobody wants to do business in Califlower.
Aren’t all torts tax-free? I thought they were.
Nothing is tax free. Government sees a chunk of change changing hands and it will stick its filthy hands in for its cut.
They had to prove fault, what did the trucking company do that was negligent? Maybe the truck was defective and the company knew it. Or maybe there was nothing wrong with the truck in which case there is a good chance of it being over turned on appeal.
that sum will end up being 240,000 ten years from now after all the appeals.
If it had been anybody else, then the girl wouldn't have been there, and no incident would have taken place. Now, contrast that with the notion that had the girl been there under any other circumstance, then the argument above would be valid.
It would seem to me that the identity of the driver is entirely relevant.
Buccola must be one hell of a lawyer....
Holy smokes. CA’s legal system is totally screwed up if the judge precluded the jury from hearing that the dad was driving the truck.
Can you imagine being the juror and learning that after the trial??
Me too, but I would need a $30 advance so I could chug a bottle of Jack Daniels before the running over.
Personal injury settlements and awards (judgments) ARE generally tax free.
I feel bad for the girl, but preventing a critical fact from the jury like this, this verdict is NOT a just verdict. It just is not at all.
After reading the whole article, in a way, it’s a little hard to feel sorry for the trucking line here. They obviously hired a careless, irresponsible driver -the father - who couldn’t even pay mind to his own daugther, let alone their vehicle and the safety of those around it.
They also failed to enforce a policy of not allowing his family members in or near the vehicle when it is in operation on company business. That is a liability thing that I would think insurance would require anyway. For all that company knows, these people were living in this truck.
Leaving themselves so exposed while residing in a business hostile place like Californistan was basically asking for this outcome. Any court decision will natually be tainted due to the looney-toons they have for judges making decisions on key evidence.
Californistan is a problem. Until it is fixed, if you’re going to try and do business there, you’ve got to be a little smarter than these guys were. They don’t even seem that interested in appealing. It’s hard to fathom why they don’t think they have a case. Of course, who knows what other evidence the defense was not allowed to admit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.