In this section you can find some of the Significant Settlements
that our lawyers had achieved.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY / GYMNASTICS MAT
AUTO ACCIDENT / BRAIN DAMAGE
SUMMARY: PRODUCTS LIABILITY/GYMNASTICS
MAT
COUNTY: Los Angeles
STATE: CA
VERDICT: $14,750,000 plus prejudgment interest per CCP 998.
ATTORNEYS Pltf: Attorney Search Network: Serious & Catastrophic
Injuries Lawyer.
Deft: Shield & Smith Law Offices by John B. Loomis and Steven
J. Freeburg (LA).
DEMAND: $3,999,999.99 (CCP 998) on 1-17-83 (this demand not to Shield
& Smith, but to prior law firm); $8,000,000 5-22-85 at Trial.
OFFER: $500,000 (from Shield & Smith) w/indication of substantially
more in May 1985, refused; Judge Tenner retained for settlement.
SPECIALS: $2,145,000 MED (stipulated to); $560,000-$1,000,000 (approx)
LE; deft's expert, Brinton testified present LE value of $230,000-$400,000.
FACTS: Incident occurred on 4-29-80 to pltf (age 21-gymnast instructor)
employed part-time at a private club in Northridge (Le Club Gymnastics)
earning approx $10,000 per year, $4.00 per hour and also employed
in several part-time jobs related to construction. Pltf was using
an HJ5-18 mat, attempting a 1 1/2 rollout off of a mini trampoline
(GTX) when his head pocketed into the mat while his body continued
moving forward. One of pltf's hands went into mat deeper than the
other. Alleged the mat was too soft and was designed as a high jump
pit and sold as gymnastics mat. The mat was 5' 6" by 13' 3"
w/18" of padding. The mat had been modified for use as a gymnastics
mat by removal of 6" of foam thickness and the addition of
a 12-inch lattice base. Further alleged the deft had not lab tested
the mat for gymnastics use and failed to warn.
INJURIES: Ventilator dependent quadriplegia at C2 w/full-time nursing
care.
DEFENSE: Contended product was not defective under theory of strict
liability or negligent design; did not negligently fail to warn.
Accident caused by pltf's own negligence and state of health. Pltf
was suffering from severe cold and had taken 2 antihistamines; Pltf
also had some residuals relating to accident in 1979. There was
ample evidence mat had been tested by gymnastics experts; several
national champions had used same type of mat, Mike Jacki being one.
Pltf's own testimony: He had performed the same skill on same mat
& trampoline 400-500 times before without incident.
Special Damages
(These questions submitted by deft's Atty. Pltf's Atty submitted
list, but was too detailed-Court refused it.)
1. Defective mfg & design (GTX Mini Trampoline)? 11-1 Yes
2. Did defect exist when (GTX Mini Trampoline) left A.M.F., Inc?
11-1 Yes
3. Defect proximate cause of injury and damage? 11-1 No
4. N/A
5. Defect in mfg & design (HJ5-18 Mat), mfgd & sold by
deft? 11-1 Yes
6. Did defect exist in HJ5-18 Mat when it left deft? 11-1 Yes
7. Was said HJ5-18 Mat proximate cause of injury and damage? 10-2
Yes
8. Did pltf's injuries & damages result from use of mat that
was reasonably foreseeable to or intended by A.M.F., Inc? 11-1 Yes
9. Deft negligent? 11-1 Yes
10. Was negligence of deft proximate cause of injuries & damages?
10-2 Yes
11. Was there contributory negligence on part of pltf? 10-2 No
12. N/A
13. Was there neg on part of pltf's employer or agent, or employee's
other than pltf? 11-1 Yes
14. Did Neg of pltf's employer or agent or employee other than
pltf contribute to proximate cause of pltf's injury? 10-2 Yes
15. Without taking into consideration reduction of negligence to
pltf if any, or the amount of damages suffered by pltf, a proximate
cause of which was the accident in question? $14,750,000 9-3.
16. Assuming 100% represents combined total of:
(a) Pltf of
(b) pltf's employer or agent or employer other than Deft &
(c) of the deft.
What portion of any such combined faults attributable to following:
(a) Pltf
(b) pltf's employer? Pltf: 0%; Employer as agent or employee: 4%;
deft: 96% 11-1
Editor's Note: In this six-month trial, 4 months were spent on
pltf's case while 1 1/2 months spent on deft's case w/balance of
time (1 month) on Jury selection. Approx 300 Jurors interviewed
before Panel selected due to anticipated length of Trial.
If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact
us.
Call us or click here
to get a referral to an ASN's panel lawyer.
Go back to Top
|
