WTF happened to common sense?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Softballguy, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. Softballguy


    Likes Received:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Amongst the libtards
    I give up!

    Guy drives trucks for a living.
    Guy breaks company rule and brings family along on a trip in company truck.
    Guy accidentally runs over own daughter with company truck.
    Guy sues trucking company.
    Guy wins lawsuit.

    Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck
    By Andy Furillo
    Published: Tuesday, Mar. 9, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

    An Oregon girl whose truck-driver father accidentally ran her over with his big rig has won $24.3 million in damages from the Portland company that a Sacramento judge found legally responsible for her injuries.

    The personal-injury award handed down by a Superior Court jury last Friday to Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez is the largest in Sacramento County history, according to the local bar association.

    In a court-trial decision returned Dec. 14, Judge David W. Abbott said the firm that hired Simon Loza Mejia, Freeway Transport Inc., was liable for the girl's injuries.

    "Defendant was listed on the shipper's bill of lading as the carrier," Abbott wrote. "Defendant insured the load. Defendant guaranteed delivery of the load."

    Six years ago, Loza-Jimenez, now 14, joined her father, mother and other family members on a Thanksgiving long-haul trip from their home in Hermiston, Ore., to Bakersfield, where they visited relatives and picked up a load of produce to take back to Oregon.

    On their way home, they stopped Nov. 27, 2004, for a break near Mount Shasta. When Loza Mejia got back inside the truck and pulled away, his daughter was still outside and got caught under the truck's rear wheels.

    The girl suffered severe injuries to her entire lower body that will require an untold number of future surgeries, according to evidence presented in the lawsuit. Along with the prospect of hip replacement and other procedures, the injuries also will "affect her private functions" for the rest of her life, plaintiff's lawyer Robert A. Buccola said.

    Before the damages phase of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench to exclude the jury from knowing it was the girl's father who accidentally drove over her. The plaintiff's lawyers argued it would have unduly prejudiced the panel.

    Buccola, a veteran Sacramento trial lawyer who in 1998 won a $9.3 million award for a client that stood until last Friday as the local personal injury record, said Monday the father-daughter relationship was "legally irrelevant."

    "It was no different than if anybody else, a complete stranger, had been injured," Buccola said. "That was the correct legal ruling."

    Defense attorney Gary C. Ottoson of Los Angeles said he did not know how or if the knowledge that Loza Mejia was Loza-Jimenez's father would have affected the jury.

    "I have to believe it would have made some difference," Ottoson said.

    Once the judge made his liability decision nearly three months ago, the case went to a jury to decide damages. On Friday, the 10-woman, two-man panel, following a 13-day trial, came back with its award. The money broke down to $2.2 million for the girl's past medical expenses, including $1.6 million in costs incurred at Shriner's Children's Hospital, plus $2.1 million for future economic damages, $8 million for past pain and mental suffering and $12 million for such future noneconomic losses.

    "We were thrilled to see that the jury appreciated the full magnitude of Diana's injuries," Buccola said. "She faces at least a dozen future surgeries and a life of serious disrepair. She's going to be going through the worst ahead of her."

    Ottoson's defense team argued that Freeway Transport wasn't responsible in the case because the company only brokered her father's truck deal to haul the produce.

    They claimed the defendant firm was not the actual long-haul carrier, even though they conceded that the Portland produce company that contracted for Loza Mejia's Bakersfield pickup – United Salad – is owned and operated by the same people who run Freeway Transport.

    In a pre-trial brief filed last year, the defense lawyers said Loza-Jimenez was not a member of the general public eligible for protection under interstate transport regulations because her father took her along for the trip without Freeway Transport's knowledge.

    "Loza and his wife were responsible for the well-being of their daughter and owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect, control and supervise her," the defense papers said. "This sad and unfortunate accident simply did not arise out of any duty owed by Freeway Transport."

    Ottoson said Monday he asked the jury to limit the award to Loza-Jimenez to "something around $8 million."

    "I rather expected they'd come in probably above that, but not a whole lot – maybe in the $12 million, $14-15 million range," Ottoson said in an interview Monday.

    "It was a very bad injury. It's a sad story for the girl," Ottoson said.

    Buccola said he filed the case in Sacramento because Freeway Transport listed the capital as a licensed place of business. He said the girl's father was devastated by the accident. He now works as a mechanic on a dairy farm in Oregon, according to Buccola.

    "The idea that a horrific injury like this occurs, that is otherwise preventable, and it happens to your own daughter – it's unimaginable," Buccola said.

    Attorneys for both sides are negotiating a final disposition, but Ottoson said Freeway Transport is not planning to appeal the outcome.
  2. JuneyBooney


    Likes Received:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Northern Virginia
    That verdict will be set aside. Our courts are sometimes really nuts.

  3. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    Likes Received:
    Dec 28, 2000
    There. Any other questions?
  4. Street Fighter

    Street Fighter Texas A&M '07

    Likes Received:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Portland, TX
    Common sense went the way of fast cash.

    I read about a lawsuit from a few years ago where a burglar entered a home and the homeowner hit him and broke his nose and the burglar won the lawsuit in court.

    Another one that was similar was when the first person hit the second person and broke their hand, then won a lawsuit because the second persons face broke the first persons hand

    I have a strong belief and have had it for years
    "People are stupid, then there are exceptions."
  5. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    Likes Received:
    Jan 26, 2001
    if it was common wouldn't everybody have it?

    remember, most juries are made of the populous from their specific area, and in America thats not saying much lately.
  6. lanternlad

    lanternlad Mythmatician

    Likes Received:
    Mar 28, 2008
    "Stupid is supposed to be fatal, but we spend countless resources to protect idiots from being the cause of their own demise. Occasionally, a ray of sunshine comes through and stupid manages to do the job it was designed for."

  7. mymini40


    Likes Received:
    Feb 27, 2009
    battle creek,michigan
  8. 1234Havasu


    Likes Received:
    Dec 19, 2009
    LHC, Arizona
    The problem here isn't the people, it's the lawyers. When something like this happens the family gets bombarded with sleezy, low-life, ambulance chasers telling them how much money they can get for them and that it won't cost the family anything.....just sign here.
  9. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Likes Received:
    May 19, 2005
    I remember receiving an email in the late 90s that went something like this:

    IIRC it was attributed at the time to a congressman who was lamenting a particularly stupid piece of law that was about to make scumbag trial lawyers even wealthier. I'm not sure about the letter's provenance, but its conclusions strike me as being as close to 100% correct as a mere mortal could ever get.
  10. 10mm29


    Likes Received:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Common sense is rare these days, but I believe it is extinct in california.
  11. Fumble

    Fumble RIP Poom . . .

    Likes Received:
    Jun 5, 2004
    East Minnesota (a.k.a. Western WI)
    What part of "Freeway Transport is not planning to appeal the outcome" do you not understand?
  12. HKUSP45Css


    Likes Received:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Houston, by God, Texas
    I know this isn't going to be popular but ...

    This: "It was no different than if anybody else, a complete stranger, had been injured," Buccola said. "That was the correct legal ruling."

    Is legally correct.

    The shipping company's insurance is liable for the negligence of the shipping company's employees. That it so happened the guy who caused the damages was also the parent isn't really germane to the liability question.

    If the guy had run over a stranger the insurance would have been liable. Why does that legal theory change because the victim (the girl) and the operator were related.

    I'm not arguing any kind of "frivilous lawsuit" ideology. I'm interested in why the legal theory should be thrown out of the window based solely on the relationship of the negligent driver and the victim.

    If a mom hits her son's car as they are both turning into the driveway AND it's clearly her fault, the insurance company still pays to fix the son's car. Even if it's the SAME insurance company AND policy that they are both on.
  13. mr00jimbo


    Likes Received:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Vancouver, Canada
    "So you ran over your own daughter?"
    "We're not responsible, you shouldn't have brought your family with you...."
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2010
  14. Chad Landry

    Chad Landry Cajunator® CLM

    Likes Received:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Man, I love that guy! :cheers: :rofl: