| CATEGORY |
DATE |
RESULT |
VENUE |
DESCRIPTION |
| Premises (public) |
08/25/04 |
Jury Trial: $1.185 million (9-3)
$1.223 million settlement post-trial |
San Diego County |
Plaintiff sustained blindness in one eye and an orbital fracture after being hit by a golf ball that went through a 12' high safety fence (2" webbing and golf balls are 1.75" wide). Plaintiff claimed premises liability, negligence and reckless conduct. Punitive damages claim dismissed. Defendant stipulated to liability and tried the case as to damages only. |
| Amusement Park |
05/18/04 |
Mediated Settlement
$9,105,000 |
Confidential |
Carnival rider injured after falling from swing ride. Injuries: skull fracture, hematoma, clavicle fracture, abrasions and lacerations, fracture of T6 and T7 vertebrae. 8 day hospital stay and residual cognitive damages. |
| Premises (private pre-school playground) |
05/03/04 |
Jury Trial: $400,000 |
Contra Costa Cty |
Plaintiff (aged 4) sustained anoxic brain injury and residual related mental deficits when her neck was entangled in a jump rope while she was sliding down a “slipper slide.” Plaintiff claimed that preschoolers should not have been allowed to have jump ropes on the slide, that the teacher:student ration was too low, and that the teachers could not have visually observed plaintiff from their vantage point, a violation of state law. Defendant denied these claims and claimed that the teacher:student ratio was appropriate. |
| Amusement Park |
03/23/04 |
Jury Trial: defense |
San Diego County |
Carnival rider claimed injury while riding a boogie board on the “Bruticus Maximus” wave attraction at Belmont Park in San Diego. He landed on the bottom of the pool which was covered with one inch of resolite foam padding. Plaintiff claimed product liability and negligent instruction. Plaintiff denied signing a written release of liability form. Defendants argued primary and express assumption of the risk. |
| Horseback riding |
11/21/03 |
Court Trial: defense |
Ventura County |
Plaintiff fell off horse during riding lesson. Judge denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on express assumption of the risk but found for the defendant on primary assumption of the risk grounds. There were conflicting release provisions. |
| ATV design defect |
07/10/03 |
Jury Trial: defense |
San Luis Obispo Cty |
Plaintiff sustained fractured hand when lost control of ATV and veered off the road. Plaintiff claimed rear brakes on ATV were defective because they did not operate when ATV was in neutral gear. Defendant designer denied any defect, demonstrated that plaintiff could have stopped the ATV using front brakes, and that rear brakes would have made no significant difference in stopping the ATV. Defendant also claimed that ATV not built for use by two people (plaintiff’s wife was a passenger), and that extra weight contributed to causing accident. |
| Amusement Park |
12/23/02 |
Binding Arbitration: $4,970,084 to plaintiffs |
San Bernardino Cty |
Plaintiff fell from a Ferris wheel gondola at an amusement park when the lap bar sprang open during the ride. Plaintiff fell 35 - 50 feet to the ground, landing on his feet. Plaintiff sustained a crush injury to his left tibial fibula and crushed ankle/calcaneus. Plaintiff claimed $1,356,873 in economic damages plus general damages on his own behalf and on behalf of his son who witnessed the incident. Plaintiff claimed negligent operation of the ride and negligent maintenance of the ride equipment. Defendant contended that plaintiff opened the lap bar himself to retrieve his cell phone. Plaintiff son awarded $50,000.00 for Dillon emotional distress damages. |
| Team Sports |
07/03/02 |
Jury Trial: Defense
Demand: $450,000
Offer: $2,500 |
Los Angeles County |
Plaintiff claimed that coaches of his university’s soccer league conspired to injure him following a dispute. Plaintiff claimed $550,000 in damages after sustaining a fractured clavicle after running into his coach. |
Premises (public)
Rollerblading |
05/21/02 |
Jury Trial: $66,950 (reduced to $17,793 due to 65% comparative liability finding and collateral sources)
Demand: $65,000
Offer: $5,001-12,500 |
Ventura County |
Plaintiff fell while rollerblading on city property after striking an uneven area in the concrete path. Plaintiff claimed dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff sustained fractures to her left elbow and wrist. Defendant claimed primary assumption of the risk by person engaged in hazardous recreational activity. The court ruled that rollerblading was not a hazardous recreational activity but was dangerous enough to justify BAJI 3.41 instruction re: heightened standard of care for participant in activity. |
| Jet ski |
06/20/01 |
Settlement: $1.3 mil |
Riverside County |
Plaintiff (aged 15) sustained serious head and body injuries following collision between 2 rented jet skis. Plaintiff claimed defendant rental center negligently failed to instruct renters regarding operation of jet skis. Defendant denied this and asserted express assumption of the risk since renters signed release forms, and also asserted primary assumption of the risk. |
| Jet ski |
01/20/01 |
Jury Trial: defense (12-0)
Demand: $15,000 (policy limits)
Offer: $5,000 |
Modesto County |
Plaintiff was a passenger on a jet ski and fell off the jet ski while it was being maneuvered in “S” curves. Plaintiff struck her head on the jet ski sustaining a concussion, facial lacerations, and TMJ syndrome. Plaintiff claimed that defendant driver was negligent and accelerated the jet ski when she asked him to slow down, causing her to fall off. Defendant contended that plaintiff was solely at fault for falling off the jet ski. * Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on primary assumption of the risk was denied after the court found that plaintiff was not a participant in a recreational sport. The court also refused to instruct the jury on primary assumption of the risk due to his finding that plaintiff was not a participant in a recreational sport. |
| Gymnastics |
03/06/00 |
Jury Trial: defense
(10-2)
Demand: $250,000
Offer: $70,000 |
Los Angeles County |
Plaintiff (aged 9) injured while performing a gymnastics trampoline routine under the supervision of defendant gym. Another student jumped on the trampoline causing plaintiff’s knee to hit his mouth resulting in injury to knee and tooth. Plaintiff claimed negligent supervision. Defendant claimed unforeseeable accident and that it provided reasonable supervision. |
Premises (private)
Rollerskating |
11/02/00 |
Jury Trial: defense
(12-0)
Demand: $155,000
Offer: $40,000 |
Stanislaus County |
Plaintiff fell while rollerskating with grandchildren at defendant roller rink. Plaintiff claimed that two other patrons were chasing eachother and knocked her down. Plaintiff fractured her left wrist. Plaintiff claimed that the roller rink was overcrowded and understaffed, using 2 guards instead of the industry norm of 3. The 2 guards were talking to eachother when the accident occurred. Defendant claimed the supervision was adequate and that plaintiff fell when another skater cut in front of her. Special damages: $33,000.00. |
| Spectator |
08/30/99 |
Jury Trial: defense
(12-0) |
Contra Costa Cty |
Plaintiff struck by a baseball while attending a baseball game. Plaintiff claimed defendant school district breached duty to provide screened seating for spectators. Defendant claimed that field and 6 foot fence met all safety standards. |
| Wave Runner |
09/28/98 |
Jury Trial: Defense (11-1)
Demand: $300,000 (policy limits)
Offer: none |
San Diego County |
Plaintiff was injured when his Wave Runner collided with a 28 foot boat. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent in the operation of his boat. Defendant claimed that plaintiff was negligent in the operation of the Wave Runner, performing acrobatics with it, that he was operating the Wave Runner on the wrong side of the river, and failed to keep a proper lookout for other boats. *Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on primary assumption of the risk denied. |
| Premises (public) |
07/23/98 |
Jury Trial: defense
(9-3 City negligence; 12-0 employee; 10-2 City dangerous condition)
Demand: $2 mill
Offer: $150,000 + |
Jury Trial: defense
(9-3 City negligence; 12-0 employee; 10-2 City dangerous condition)
Demand: $2 mill
Offer: $150,000 + |
Plaintiff, a minor (16), was a passenger in a maintenance cart owned by the (public entity) defendant. The cart struck a goalpost which fell, striking the plaintiff on his head. Plaintiff claimed negligent supervision of defendant’s employee, a minor who violated rules and allowed plaintiff to ride in the cart. Plaintiff claimed negligent maintenance of a dangerous condition on public property. Plaintiff sustained serious head injuries and psychological changes resulting in further injury. Plaintiff claimed $6 million in special damages. Defendant contended that it had no notice of misconduct by its employee and that the plaintiff and his friend were misusing the goal by purposefully running into it with the cart and that the goalpost had never been dislodged in over twenty years of intended use. |
Premises (public)
Snowmobile v. Snowcat |
06/26/98 |
Jury Trial: defense |
Alpine County |
Plaintiff sustained severe head injuries while operating a snowmobile when he drove into a snowcat parked across path to prevent vehicle traffic from proceeding on that track. It was dark and there were no flashers, reflectors, or warning signs alerting traffic to the snowcat’s presence. Defendant claimed plaintiff was intoxicated, was speeding, and misusing the snowmobile (more than one person riding), traveling on a closed track, and that modification to the snowmobile contributed to the plaintiff’s damages. |
| Horseback riding |
06/05/98 |
Summary Judgment
Demand: $25,000
Offer: $5,000 |
Los Angeles County |
Plaintiff rented a horse and fell when the horse spooked. Defendant claimed primary and express assumption of the risk. |
| Amusement Park |
04/27/98 |
Jury Trial: defense
Demand: $20,000
Offer: $3,000 |
San Bernardino |
Plaintiff sustained laceration to ear and strained neck and back while riding the Alpine Slide at Magic Mountain. The sled began vibrating and the plaintiff’s face came into contact with the track. Plaintiff claimed negligent operation and control of Alpine Slide by defendant Magic Mountain. Defendant claimed primary assumption of the risk and that plaintiff was adequately warned and instructed. |
| Premises (fitness center) |
12/01/97 |
Jury Trial: defense
(10-2)
Demand: $150,000
Offer: $50,000 |
Los Angeles County |
Plaintiff sustained herniated lumbar discs when holding pin mechanism failed during weight lifting. Plaintiff claimed defendant fitness center was negligent in operation and maintenance of club. Defendant claimed plaintiff failed to check to ensure pin mechanism secure prior to using equipment. |
| Premises (public) |
10/15/97 |
Jury Trial: defense
(11-1)
Demand: $115,000
Offer: 0 |
Yolo County |
Plaintiff was injured while catching a foul ball. He hit his knee against a raised concrete footing which anchored a cyclone fence. Plaintiff claimed dangerous condition of public property and that
there should have been a warning track or hay bales around the perimeter of the fence to protect the players. Defendant claimed that plaintiff was solely responsible for injuring himself. |
| Snowboarding |
08/19/97 |
Jury Trial: defense (9-3)
Demand: $1.25 mill
Offer: 0 |
El Dorado County |
Plaintiff rendered permanent paraplegic while performing a jump while snowboarding. Plaintiff contended that the jump was too steep and dangerous. Defendant contended that the jump was consistent with competition jumps and that the snowboarder controlled the difficulty of the jumps. *Defendant snowpark’s motion for summary judgment based on primary assumption of the risk was denied after a finding that defendant had a duty not to increase the inherent risks of snowboarding by creating a jump which by its design posed an extreme risk of injury. |
| Motorcycle race |
01/25/96 |
Jury Trial: $758,729 reduced 1/3 by plaintiff’s comparative negligence and 1/3 by plaintiff’s father’s negligence for net of $331,081 against local motorcycle club. Defense verdict as to national motorcycle club. |
Los Angeles County |
Plaintiff (aged 16) was injured during the start of a desert motorcycle race while a member of his father’s pit crew. Plaintiff was returning to the pit from the start area when he ran into a truck. Plaintiff contended that traffic directional notices were unclear on the trail. Defendant contended that plaintiff caused the accident by speeding and riding a motorcycle that was too big for him, and that defendants had no duty to direct traffic. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.3 million. Defendant asked for a defense verdict but an award of $100,000 in the event of a finding of liability. |
| Shooting |
01/14/93 |
Jury Trial: $160,000 |
Monterey County |
Plaintiff accidentally shot in the leg while defendant demonstrating how to load/unload a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Plaintiff contended that defendant negligence in handling gun because he had his finger on the trigger while he was unloading. Defendant claimed accident unavoidable and that plaintiff comparatively at fault and assumed risk since plaintiff perceived defendant was intoxicated. |
| Premises (public) Diving Accident |
03/03/89 |
Jury Trial: Defense
(9-3)
Demand: $500,000
Offer: $50,000 + |
Merced County |
Plaintiff rendered quadriplegic when dove from pier at Lake Yosemite. Plaintiff claimed that County took inadequate precautions to warn public from diving off pier into 4' of murky water and that the pier was a dangerous condition. Defendant County presented evidence that the pier had 3.5' railing on either side with signs indicating “No Diving From Pier” at each entrance. Defendant claimed that although plaintiff only read Spanish he knew that the signs prohibited some activity and proceeded anyway. The plaintiff’s friends testified that they warned him that diving was not allowed and that he acknowledged their warning. |
| Defective atercraft |
02/25/88 |
Jury Trial: defense
(9-3: product liability; 10-2: negligence) |
Santa Clara County |
Plaintiff was waterskiing and sustained injury when struck by a jet ski. Plaintiff claimed that the jet ski was defective in design because it could not be controlled at all times and that the jet ski’s design engineers admitted that this design flaw existed and could cause injury. Defendant claimed that there was no feasible alternative design and that the accident was unavoidable. |
