Abend v. Automobile Clubs of Southern California

Topic: Personal Injury (Vehicular)
Sub topic: Auto v. Auto
Sub-sub topic: Negligence
Settlement: $4.9 million

Attorneys:
Plaintiff - Eric F. Yuhl, Yuhl, Rhames, Yuhl & Atkinson, La Jolla
Plaintiff - Christopher P. Yuhl, Yuhl, Rhames, Yuhl & Atkinson, Santa Monica
Plaintiff - Michael R. Rhames, Yuhl, Rhames, Yuhl & Atkinson, Santa Monica
Defendant - Scott L. Hengesbach, Murchison & Cumming, Los Angeles
Defendant - Joshua A. Quinones, Murchison & Cumming, Los Angeles

Technical Experts:
Plaintiff - Edmund R. Cababa accident reconstruction, Orange
Plaintiff - Theodore Vavoulis M.S., forensic economist, Pasadena
Plaintiff - Gene Bruno M.S.., vocational rehabilitation, Los Angeles
Defendant - Leon Brachman entertainment industry, Los Angeles
Defendant - Karen Jorgensen human relations, La Canada
Defendant - Barbara C. Luna CPA, Sherman Oaks
Defendant - Kenneth L. Pearl accident reconstruction, Long Beach
Defendant - Edward L. Workman vocational rehabilitation, Santa Ana

Medical Experts:
Plaintiff - Brian P. Jacks M.D., psychiatrist, Beverly Hills
Plaintiff - William Katkov M.D., internist and gastroenterologist, Los Angeles
Plaintiff - Barry I. Ludwig M.D., neurologist, Inglewood
Plaintiff - Ronald E. Saul M.D., forensic behavioral neurologist and neuropsychiatrist, Los Angeles
Plaintiff - Jeffrey Schaeffer Ph.D., clinical psychologist, Los Angeles
Defendant - Douglas K. Detterman psychologist, Ohio
Defendant - Jeffrey M. Lulow Ph.D., neuropsychologist; Beverly Hills
Defendant - David J. Paster Ph.D., psychologist, Encino

Facts:
On Nov. 4, 1998, the plaintiff, a 30-year-old fitness trainer, and a 1997 MBA graduate from USC's Marshall School of Business, was traveling westbound on Rose Avenue in West Los Angeles. She stopped at the red light at the intersection with Lincoln Blvd. The defendant, in a 1997 Toyota pickup truck leased from the defendant rental agency, collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant was driving the vehicle in the course and scope of his employment. The investigating L.A. Police Department officer concluded that the plaintiff was the primary collision factor in the incident. However, the lone known witness to the accident (who never spoke to the police) stated that the defendant ran a red light.

The plaintiff contended that she proceeded properly into the intersection after the traffic light turned to green. She contended that the defendant ran the red light and was speeding and inattentive.

The defendant contended that he was driving within the speed limit and properly entered the intersection on a green light, whereas the plaintiff had entered on a red light. The plaintiff had, as a consequence, violated the defendant's right-of-way and he had no time to avoid the resulting impact.

Contentions:
The plaintiff contended that she proceeded properly into the intersection after the traffic light turned to green. She contended that the defendant ran the red light and was speeding and inattentive. The defendant contended that he was driving within the speed limit and properly entered the intersection on a green light, whereas the plaintiff had entered on a red light. The plaintiff had, as a consequence, violated the defendant's right-of-way and he had no time to avoid the resulting impact.

Injuries:
The plaintiff was in a coma for 18 days due to severe traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff was hospitalized for over two months, and then treated on an out-patient basis for nearly four months. The plaintiff claimed residual cognitive deficits, personality changes, reduced IQ, depression, social isolation, a degree of left side hemi paresis, limited work prospects (sheltered work environment only) and need for daily living care assistance. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff had made a substantial recovery and that even further improvement was likely. Additionally, the defendant alleged that an analysis of the plaintiff's SAT and GMAT test scores showed little change in her IQ and that any personality changes were preexisting.

Damages:
The plaintiff claimed she had the pre-earning potential of an MBA but, as a result of the accident, could no longer anticipate that earning capability. The plaintiff's experts calculated the present value of her loss of earnings at $3.1 million. The defendants expert opined that the plaintiff's present value of impaired earnings at approximately $800,000.

Specials in Evidence:
MEDS $395,598 ; Future MEDS $601,757. The defendant submitted that $300,000 would be appropriate for future medical expenses.

Settlement Discussions: The plaintiff's initial demand was $15 million. The defendants' initial offer was $200,000. At the conclusion of the first mediation, the demand was lowered to $7.5 million and the offer increased to $3.25 million.

Thereafter, the parties negotiated amongst themselves and resolved the case.