Driver pulls out of parking lot and crosses traffic lanes to turn left in front of oncoming motorcycle.
Past lost earnings: $438,000
Past medical: $738,215
Future lost earnings: $4,102,000
Future medical: $54,000
None. Prop 213 case.
Bisnar | Chase, LLP by H. Gavin Long, Newport Beach.
Cholakian & Associates by Kevin Cholakian, South San Francisco.
Fernando Miranda, M.D., neurology.
Sharon Berry, Psy.D., neuropsychology.
None.
Raymond Merala, accident reconstruction.
Ronald Morrell, vocational rehabilitation.
Philip Allman, economics, Oakland.
Carol Hyland, future medical costs.
William Woodruff, accident reconstruction, Mountain View.
Tate Kubose, human factors, Los Gatos.
Jason Fries, animation/camera matching.
Lisa Suhonos, vocational rehabilitation.
On November 18th, 2016, around 5 p.m., defendant pulled out of his office driveway with the intention of crossing 2 lanes of traffic to make a left turn. As the defendant was crossing the second lane of traffic in his 2012 Subaru Outback, he blocked the right of way of 32-year-old plaintiff who was riding a motorcycle, causing a crash.
That defendant failed to stop before pulling into traffic, cut off plaintiff's right of way and caused the crash. As a result, plaintiff suffered a TBI and could no longer do the work of an IT manager and earn the $165,000+ per year that he had been earning when the crash happened.
That plaintiff was traveling at 60-65 mph before he applied his brakes to avoid defendant who was entering traffic. The dash cam in defendant’s car showed he did not stop before entering traffic. Defendant contended he did look for a split second just before entering traffic and that he had the right of way. The speed limit where the crash occurred was 35 mph. Plaintiff acknowledged he was going 37-46 mph before he applied the brakes.
That had plaintiff not been speeding, there would have been no crash since plaintiff impacted the left rear driver's side of defendant's car. Also, that plaintiff would have been difficult to see given the "looming" created by the headlights being cast by other vehicles travelling behind plaintiff and his likely distance when he viewed the plaintiff.
Defendant disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's TBI. Defendant’s neuropsychologist thought plaintiff was worse off than plaintiff’s neuropsychologist opined. Defendant’s vocational expert disputed the mitigation damages of plaintiff’s expert (future earnings of $25,000-30,000 per year), indicating there were jobs available that would pay more; that with the right cognitive training, plaintiff could mitigate earnings damages between $60,000 and $100,000 per year.
Traumatic brain injury (TBI).
This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.
© Copyright 2020 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. www.juryverdictalert.com