From: Neil E. Amrhein (neil@compu-powr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 09:44:47 PDT
Sort of following in the "unsafe vehicle" thread, I found this as a "resume item" on a blood-sucker's, er uh, lawyer's site..... Moral of the story? Be very, very cautious when driving your personal truck! My tax dollars won't cover your payouts....
"A 25-year-old female plaintiff was driving her 1993 Nissan Centra east on Airport Blvd. in Salinas at 9:00 o'clock at night.It was dark, and the weather was cloudy and rainy.The speed limit was 45 mph.
At the time of the accident, two Army personnel were driving a Hemmet Wrecker, a four-axle, eight wheel all-purpose tow vehicle, which was eight feet wide and 32.5 feet in length.As the plaintiff approached the area of the National Guard Armory, the Hemmet Wrecker was pulling out from the armory across the westbound lanes of Airport Blvd.
All experts agree that the plaintiff was traveling between 50 and 55 mph in the 45 mph speed limit.She was not wearing a lap or shoulder restraint.Her Nissan Centra crashed into the Hemmet Wrecker in the No. 1 eastbound lane at approximately the Wrecker's midpoint.Plaintiff's driver side "A" pillar, windshield and driver's door was forced into the driver's compartment by the collision, and plaintiff's head and left side was thrown into the intruding metal.
The plaintiff alleged that the U.S. Army was negligent in that the Hemmet Wrecker violated plaintiff's right of way, the drivers of the Wrecker were inattentive, and the U.S. Army negligently planned, warned of, and controlled traffic in the vicinity of the commencement of the convoy.
The defendants contended that Plaintiff was traveling in excess of the speed limit and at an unsafe speed for the night time and rainy conditions. Defendants contended that had plaintiff reacted appropriately to the Hemmet Wrecker's turning maneuver, she would have come to a complete stop prior to striking the Wrecker. Defendants also contended that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to wear her lap and shoulder harness, and that had she done so, she would not have suffered a head injury.
The plaintiff suffered an intracerebral hematoma of the right frontal temporal region, which involved the sylvan fissure and right frontal horn of the ventricle.She was initially comatose and underwent an emergent right frontal craniotomy for evacuation of the hematoma.
The plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately one month, then received inpatient rehabilitation at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center for approximately six weeks until her post-traumatic confusion resolved. Her permanent, residual injuries included multiple cognitive deficits, spasticity of the left foot and left hand, balance impairment, atrophy of the left shoulder girdle muscle, slight left foot drop secondary to ankle tendon contracture, and contracture of the left hand.
Because the plaintiff did not have liability insurance at the time of this accident, she was prevented by Proposition 213 from recovering general damages for pain and suffering.Based on a life care plan which was created for plaintiff, she received a $943,902.00 present value settlement.She is expected to actually receive $2,148,697.00 in payout, consisting of $575,000 in cash, $2,000.00 per month for life, and an additional $400.00 per month for life commencing in ten years, all adjusted for inflation."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:33:53 PDT