Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento & Elk Grove CA recently took a very interesting case to trial that may have a huge impact on personal injury cases in the future. Our client, Robert Dunlap was driving a truck owned by William Chapman when the steering locked up. He lost control of the vehicle, and hit the center median. The truck rolled two and a half times and landed upside down with Mr. Dunlap hanging from his seatbelt. Mr. Dunlap survived the crash, but he was gravely injured. He suffered two disc fractures, one at C6 and the other at C7, and was diagnosed with Brown Sequard Syndrome, a type of paralysis. Mr. Dunlap experienced numbness on his right side, stiffness, cramping, sharp pains, loss of feeling in his left hand, right hip pain, respiratory distress, and pulmonary contusions. A very bad crash, to be sure, but what is so important about this case? The fact that the steering on the truck had been complained about multiple times and no steps had been taken to fix it. In fact, the defendant in this case, Folsom Lake Ford, outright said that the truck was safe to drive when they knew there four worn ball joints in the vehicle that needed to be replaced. Documents showed that the mechanic who inspected the vehicle in July 2007 noticed the worn ball joints, but no recommendation was made to the owner to replace them. A prior owner of the vehicle, Mr. Sample, actually returned the truck to Folsom Lake Ford because he didn’t like all the problems he was having with it. In deposition he stated Folsom Lake Ford tried to tell him the shaking and steering problems Mr. Sample reported was because he had oversized tires on the truck. While having a lifted truck may change the steering, it doesn’t cause it lock up and not move at all. Mr. Sample knew this and got fed up with the truck and Folsom Lake Ford’s excuses. He turned the truck in and left with a different one. Mr. Chapman was the next person to buy the truck. When he brought it in to complain about the steering in July 2007, again, Folsom Lake Ford said it was the oversized tires, even though documentation noted the worn ball joints. The mechanic, unbeknownst to Mr. Chapman made a recommendation to replace the worn ball joints, but this was not relayed to Mr. Chapman in any form. Mr. Chapman continued to experience problems with the steering but believed the ASE certified mechanic when he told him it was safe. Under those promises of safety, he leant the truck to Mr. Dunlap in November 2007. All of this information is important because it shows that the defendant Folsom Lake Ford knew the vehicle was in a dangerous condition and they could have prevented this horrific crash by recommending the repair it needed. All Folsom Lake Ford would have needed to do was say hey “you need to fix this, it’s not safe” in order to protect themselves. But they didn’t and that put people at risk. They put Mr. Chapman at risk, his family at risk, and his friend, Robert Dunlap, at risk. The jury found Folsom Lake Ford liable for the harms suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap and returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $7,476,926.00, with interest and costs added in the verdict is over $11,400,000.00. This is important because it shows businesses and car dealerships that you can’t cut corners. If you know a problem exists, it’s your responsibility to address it. You can’t put your head in the sand, blame oversized tires, and pretend a vehicle is safe just so you can sell it and make another buck. This jury showed that California juries will not stand for that kind of behavior. And neither will we here at Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law
On November 10, 2022, Laskin Balma attorneys began a three-day underinsured motorist Arbitration which arose out of an August 10, 2015, motor vehicle collision in which our client was significantly injured while in the course and scope of her employment. For Laskin Balma attorneys, the team of Diane Balma, Alan Laskin, and Christopher Holleran, appeared for our injured client. Our client settled quickly for policy limits of $25,000.00 with the adverse driver’s insurance company. Laskin Balma attorneys then initiated a claim for policy limits against our client’s employer’s underinsured motorist coverage provided by Travelers Insurance. That’s when the real work began. The case was challenging in that our client had multiple pre-existing physical conditions and limitations. Although Travelers conceded that the other driver was responsible for the collision, it disputed that the collision, itself, rendered our client unable to work. Travelers rejected our multiple demands to settle our client’s claim within its available policy limits (approximately $1.7 million) and never even made a meaningful offer. After conducting a thorough evaluation of our client’s pre-collision and post-collision symptoms and injuries, we strongly believed that Travelers Insurance had jumped to erroneous conclusions early in the claims process and made assumptions about our client’s injuries and symptoms that we could disprove at Arbitration. And we set out to do just that! We hired credible medical experts and tasked them with thoroughly evaluating the evidence. This process confirmed what we knew to be true—that Travelers had prematurely and wrongly denied our client’s claim, in part, by failing to objectively evaluate our client’s claim; and, in so doing, added insult to injury. Once we knew we could establish that our client had sustained catastrophic injuries in the collision, we set out to determine the value of the claim, including the amount of wages she had lost and would lose from being unable to work for the rest of her life. For this, we hired a highly regarded economic expert. At each step in the process leading up to and during the arbitration, we repeatedly demanded that Travelers tender its policy limits and rightfully compensate our client for her losses, but it refused to do so. Instead, Travelers “dug in”, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it had wrongfully denied our client’s claim. Travelers’ failure to acknowledge how seriously our client was injured and that she could no longer work was demoralizing to her and caused her unnecessary anxiety and frustration. After a three-day arbitration, the Arbitrator issued an award in favor of our client in the amount of $3,609,051.80 for her pain and suffering, past and future treatment and past and future wage loss. This outcome is a classic example of why and how effective legal representation makes a difference for our clients and how it can make a difference for you!
The case spotlight this month focuses on a client with C.R.P.S. This is a serious and debilitating pain disease. It stands for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. When the incident occurred, our client Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California had a history of low back pain due to degenerative disc disease, but he was able to play basketball almost everyday, walk his dog, and mow the lawn. After the incident, he was barely able to walk. Our client’s mother rented a home from the defendant. She repeatedly requested that the owner of the property trim a large tree which constituted a dangerous condition. She was afraid a limb would fall off and strike one or both of her small grandchildren who lived with her. At her wits end, she finally asked her son, our client, to trim the tree for her. He agreed. During the course of the work, a limb of the tree broke off unexpectedly and caused our client from the law offices of Laskin Balma attorneys in Sacramento California to fall to the ground, landing on his right foot. He sustained a transverse comminuted fracture of the mid portion of the calcaneus and required plates and screws to be put into his ankle. He underwent surgery, then developed an infection. Our client could not catch a break. A year and three months after the incident, still in pain and struggling to get through his daily life, our client was finally diagnosed with C.R.P.S. This disease is not well understood, but it happens most often after an injury. The body does not react as expected and the brain receives constant signals of pain even after the injury has healed. The defense tried to argue that the injury was his own fault as he was not a licensed tree-trimmer and should not have been up there in the first place. Our theory on liability was that the owner of the property had a duty to keep the property in a safe condition and when she failed to do so, it was not improper for the tenant to take matters into her own hand and ask her son for help. If the owner had taken care of the rotten tree like the tenant had asked, our client would not have had to do the job himself in order to protect his nieces. The defense offered $50,000.00 to the plaintiff to settle the case. But because our client’s medical bills exceeded $165,000.00, he could not accept. All parties agreed to a binding arbitration. The arbitrator had two findings: 1) He found that the Plaintiff’s case was worth $767,795.78 2) He found the Plaintiff was partially at fault for his injury and assigned comparative fault of 80%, reducing the award to $153,559.16 Arbitration in this case was the best way to get our client some compensation. Putting this case in front of a jury would have been very risky. When liability is an issue, sometimes it is more rewarding to put the question to an arbitrator who knows liability arguments and will not dismiss a theory out of hand, like a layman on a jury might. Instead he took in all the facts, found that both parties had a hand in the incident and most importantly, found that the permanent damage our client suffered in the form of this debilitating pain disease C.R.P.S. was worth $600,000.00 in general damages. Whether we take a case to arbitration, trial, mediation, or settle it in pre-litigation, our firm is known for doing what is in the best interest of our clients and doing everything we can to get them the compensation they deserve. Need advice? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.
