Girl wins personal injury suit, receives record $24.3 million in Sacramento Court

Sacramento Bee ^ | 3/8/10 | Andy Furillo

[machogirl]

Is he still a Truck Driver? Did he get a ticket? Would he not be allowed to be discriminated against because of his accident if he applies for trucking jobs? Poor kid.

[SmartInsight]

Judge Abbott was appointed by Gray Davis in 2001.

It took me forever to find it. GOVERNOR DAVIS APPOINTS JUDGES TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 10/25/2001

Governor Gray Davis today announced the appointments of David W. Abbott and Emily E. Vasquez as judges of the Sacramento County Superior Court. Mr. Abbott, 52, of Sacramento, is a partner in the Sacramento law firm of Abbott and Nolen, which he formed in 1996. His practice emphasizes tort litigation on behalf of plaintiffs, including products liability, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, motor vehicle accidents, insurance bad faith and construction defect cases. Between 1990 and 1996, he was a sole practitioner. From 1983 to 1990, he was a partner with the law firm of Gessford & Abbott. He worked as an associate with the law firm of Gessford, Sevey & Alpar from 1982 to 1983 and as an associate with the Freidberg Law Corporation from 1978 to 1982. A significant portion of his practice involves arbitration and mediation services. Mr. Abbott also regularly serves as a judge pro tempore in mandatory settlement conferences in the Sacramento and Placer Superior Courts.

[VeniVidiVici]

Ottoson said the defense was precluded from telling the jury that the girl's father was driving the truck that injured her.

LOL! And the Democrats ignore tort reform with a straight face.

[SatinDoll]

O-o-oh!

The judge was a former tort lawyer; that explains it all.

[The Brush]

Women are more "feeling" and less "logical".

That's how I was when I was a woman.
I always thought it was due to the fact that, back then, I used to be Irish...

[BannedinBostonx]

yep.

and who would not accept the award were it their daughter who was so severely injured.

[TigersEye]

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.

I was wondering if the insurance company had refused to pay because the driver had violated policy terms like that. So the entire thing, from accident to settlement, stands on the fact that he violated company rules.

[TigersEye]

Yeah, it ought to make him feel a little better about being the one who destroyed her life. And the company he worked for. And possibly the lives of the people who owned the company and its employees.

[paul51]

The “scumbag lawyers’ probably had close to $500,000 invested in the case for expert witnesses, so they deserve whatever fee they got.

So that would be the rationale for a 14 million cut? And you would expect $500K for expert witnesses?

[traditional1]

" Can the trucking company sue the driver to mitigate its own losses?"

Sure; but the driver assuredly will not have the $23 million (50% or more of which will already have been pocketed by the Ambulance Chaser).

This Litigation Lotto has to be stopped. Rest assured the company that was sued was researched to be the deepest pockets around, and to make the supplier of goods responsible for their secure transport, AND the Father of the "victim" being the driver not being allowed to "taint" the Jury consideration is bullshit of the first magnitude.

This is similar to when repeat criminal offenders are not identified as having numberous previous arrests and/or convictions to be told to the jury.....as if the defendant is just a victim of circumstance/"good kid"/etc.

While Liberals ALWAYS whine and target "corporate greed", you NEVER hear them mention that Lawyers get multi-billion dollar fees in Class Action settlements like the Big Tobacco and Microsoft suits.....

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“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.”

It’s a strange, strange world.

[trapped_in_LA]

“Uh, 10 women and 2 men. It's less surprising and less attribution to lawyer's skill than jury selection.”

I was thinking the same thing. Why on earth the insurance company lawyers let this kind of jury hear this case I'll never know but the company should sue for malpractice.

[GOPsterinMA]

I thought so. If there’s one thing Obama won’t tax, it’s settlements and awards; don’t want to piss off the trial lawyers.

Thanks for the information!

[SCalGal]

Aren’t all torts tax-free? I thought they were.

Only the portion deemed "medical" is tax free. Any punative damages or economic loss payments are taxable.

[Vanders9]

The girl will be lucky if she gets 30%. The lawyers will take the rest.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

William Shakespeare, "Henry VI Part 2", Act IV, Scene II.

[sodpoodle]

Let’s review:

The Company is not paying - they have insurance for this type of claim.

ERGO - employee reimburses his employer from this *settlement* to keep his job.

There may very well have been a quid pro quo before the lawsuit was filed. I cannot imagine a truck driver figuring this condundrum out on his own.

[Vanders9]

Yep, the insurance company is paying. But where does the insurance company get its money from? Answer: It raises the premiums on insurance for trucking companies (amongst others). Therefore the costs of trucking companies rise. To maintain themselves, they have to pass the increased costs onto their customers, which means the cost of transportation of goods increases. Likewise, these customers, who are basically providers of goods, see their costs increase (and transport and distirubition is usually the biggest or second biggest cost they have). In order to maintain profitability, they therefore have to raise the cost of their products to the ultimate customer, joe and mary public. In other words, the people who are ultimately paying for these damages are the citizens of California.

And the irony is that those twelve jurors awarded these massive damages largely on the basis of "big companies are rich and can pay for it".

[GOPsterinMA]

Really? Thank you very much for the information!

[John O]

You might want to make it a wee bit more so you can go out and get laid, because after the "running over," your sex life is essentially non existent. That's what I'm guessing a large portion of the 12 million for future non-economic losses is for.

So she can't have any anchor babies? How sad.

The trucking company needs to appeal AND sue the father.

[Little Ray]

Lawyers take 40% plus expenses. She’ll get a bet under 60%.

However, its possible for the trucking company to tie the money up in a structured settlement so that the girl gets it all and the rest of family sees very little of it. If they’re smart, they’ll insist on this.

AND fire the father...