Defendant denies running over plaintiff's foot. $130K. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Defendant driver runs over plaintiff’s foot in marked crosswalk.

The Case

  • Case Name: Eric Freeman v. Lee Chour
  • Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC642131
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, May 09, 2019
  • Type of Action: Vehicles - vs. Pedestrian
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Michael B. Harwin
  • Plaintiffs:
    Eric Freeman, 23, barista.
  • Defendants:
    Lee Chour
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $130,800
  • Economic Damages:

    Future medical costs: $20,000

  • Non-Economic Damages:

    Past: $70,000

    Future: $40,800

  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 3 days
  • Jury Deliberation Time: Less than half a day.
  • Jury Polls: 12-0 negligence, 12-0 substantial factor, 12-0 comparative liability.

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    The Vartazarian Law Firm, APC by Matthew J. Whibley, Sherman Oaks.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar by John Ellis, Long Beach.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

    Arthur Kreitenberg, M.D. orthopedic surgery, Los Angeles. (Treating physician).

  • Defendant's Medical Expert(s):

    Scott Foreman, M.D., orthopedic surgery. 

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    On December 10, 2015 defendant drove through the intersection of Glendale Blvd. and Larga Avenue in Atwater Village. He  allegedly ran over the foot of plaintiff, who was walking in a marked crosswalk. The only two witnesses to the incident were plaintiff and defendant.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    That defendant ran over plaintiff's foot. That defendant was negligent for not seeing plaintiff walking in a marked crosswalk.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    That plaintiff was negligent. That he twisted his own ankle due to his own negligence and that defendant did not make contact with plaintiff’s foot. That plaintiff sustained essentially a sprained ankle and no knee injury. That plaintiff was 100% healed several weeks after the incident.

Injuries and Other Damages

  • Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:

    Plaintiff claimed that he sustained a minimally displaced fibula fracture that healed non-operatively several weeks after the incident. He also claimed a possible knee injury that required a diagnostic arthroscopy. Plaintiff did not claim loss of earnings nor past medical expenses.

Demands and Offers

  • Plaintiff §998 Demand: $50,000
  • Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $25,000

Additional Notes

Trial took less than three days. Jury was picked on May 7, 2019, openings on May 8, 2019, and closings and verdict on May 9, 2019. Plaintiff called three witness: Plaintiff, defendant, and treating physician by videotaped deposition. Defendant called law enforcement officer and defendant’s retained orthopedic expert.

Disclaimer

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 2019 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. www.juryverdictalert.com