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

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

[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.

[bamahead]

So the entire thing, from accident to settlement, stands on the fact that he violated company rules.

Possibly. But I was only making a supposition here. I have no idea if the company or their insurance had such a policy. The story doesn't say. In my experience though, most companies who operate any sort of moving vehicles have similar policies.

[John O]

According to court documents, Loza-Jimenez was injured during a trip she took with her father and other members of her family on a long-distance trucking haul when they stopped to take a break in the Mt. Shasta area.

When her father got back in the truck and began to move, the girl’s mother realized she wasn’t in the cab. Before the mother could get her husband to stop the truck, he ran over her with the rear wheels of the rig and crushed her pelvis, the documents said.

What was she doing UNDER the truck in the first place!?! Everyone with a brain knows you don't get under a truck (unless the wheels are chocked and you have the keys in your pocket).

I'm all for compassion but rewarding someone for their own stupidity is senseless.

[CodeToad]

If it hadn’t been her father would she have even been there?? Why didn’t the trucking company counter claim and name the father?

Idiots.

[zerosix]

Amen. This case, bad as it is, sets an awful precedent.

Personally, I'd be a lot more interested as to just why the girl was any where near where her father, the trucker, was working and if he wasn't working but at home, what was going on that the girl needed to be in the path of his truck.

I, too, would first sue the lawyers for sloppy representation (questionable at best) for not challenging the make up of the jury then not going after a lot more facts in the case.

In no way, so far as I can tell from this story, is the trucking company at fault.

Bad as it is that the girl was injured, by her own father, the the owners of the trucking company might only be faulted for hiring the guy in the first place.

Only in California as they say.

[TChris]

*sigh*

Such is the state of "justice" in America.

GIMME DA MUNNY!

[thulldud]

...imagine how the feminization of America makes even the men cower when women are talking about "....how would you feel?")

I know how I "feel" when I hear that question. Most times, when I feel that way there is something I can take for it.

[zerosix]

Speaking as a woman, I despise the feminization of America and speak out against it at every opportunity.

[sodpoodle]

**But where does the insurance company get its money from?**

Fundamentally, all insurance is the process by which many contributors undertake a *shared* risk. The premium or cost to each is smaller than the loss to an individual should catastrophe strike.

Each contributor or policy holder agrees to the terms.

The system breaks down when fraud and abuse are introduced by false or excessive claims.

This is best illustrated by the Scooter Looter scams in the Medicare program and the automobile insurance scams of contrived vehicle *accidents*.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“Can the trucking company sue the driver to mitigate its own losses”

No.

You can sue anyone for anything in California. Winning is something else. Collecting is something else again.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

Yes, but the driver doesn't have $24 million or anything close to it.

[TigersEye]

I was just following up on that with a supposition of my own.

[Vanders9]

That’s sort of what I was saying. Because the people who decide how much the damages should be have no personal stake in the affair, and because there is no limit to the amount they can set, and becasue they tend to side with “the little guy”, the system is being abused NOW...to the general detriment of the entire State. The population of California is - what, 30 million or so? That means everyone in the State has effectively paid this girl 80 cents or so. Which is nothing. But how many cases are there?

[Pete-R-Bilt]

Semi Trucks...

The next generation of ambulances...

[tubebender]

Just like blood in the water attracts sharks...