In California accident cases, it is common for insurance carriers and defense attorneys to try to dispute liability in an effort to establish the comparative fault of injured plaintiffs. A recent case, Alvarez v. Syar Industries – Napa County Superior Court Case No. 26-67154, demonstrates how some defense lawyers and insurance companies attempt to place blame on the injured victims.
Factual background of the case
On April 17, 2015, a 33-year-old juvenile hall counselor was driving her 2005 GMC Yukon on Highway 221 in Napa County accompanied by her 3-year-old son. As she was traveling north in the number two righthand lane, a street sweeper that was being driven by an employee of Syar Industries was cleaning up gravel that had been spilled in the merge lane. The Syar Industries employee attempted to complete a U-turn and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff’s injuries
The plaintiff suffered numerous fractures, abrasions and contusions. After the collision, her car caught fire, but she was unable to get out of it because of injuries she suffered to her leg. Two passersby stopped and dragged her out of her car after forcing her door open. The woman begged them to save her son, which they did. The plaintiff and her son were both transported to the hospital via an ambulance. She underwent numerous surgeries to repair the fractures in her leg, including to her femur and ankle. Her son suffered a contusion to his foot and required a splint but did not require further treatment. During his deposition, the defendant’s medical expert testified that the plaintiff would likely require an ankle fusion and a partial knee replacement in the future.
Plaintiff’s arguments
The plaintiff argued that the street sweeper’s driver held all of the fault for causing the accident. Since he was working at the time of the accident, the plaintiff argued that his employer, Sylar Industries, was liable to pay damages.
Defendant’s arguments
From the outset of the case, the defense and defendant’s attorney tried to argue that the plaintiff held some comparative fault. The insurance carrier, AIG, hired an accident reconstruction expert and a human factors expert in an attempt to prove that the plaintiff was at least partly to blame. In order to further that goal, the defense created a video simulation purporting to demonstrate that the plaintiff held a portion of the liability for the accident’s cause. The defense failed to make any meaningful settlement offers throughout the case until shortly before trial when AIG hired a new attorney.
Offers
The plaintiff submitted a §998 offer before trial in the amount of $1.9 million, which the defendant ignored. The parties engaged in mediation, but it was unsuccessful. Following the deposition testimony of her treating physicians, the plaintiff made a demand for $7 million, which the defendant again ignored. After AIG hired a new defense attorney just before trial, the defendant stipulated to liability and made an offer of $600,000. The plaintiff countered with a pretrial demand of $6.9 million, which was rejected. During the trial, the defendant made several significant offers which were rejected by the plaintiff.
Verdict
After a trial that lasted for 19 days, the jury deliberated for one day before returning a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. The gross verdict award to the plaintiff was $ $8,313,685 for the plaintiff and $129,048 for the plaintiff’s son. Of the plaintiff’s amount, the jury awarded her $340,805 in past economic damages and $2,222,880 in future economic losses. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,750,000 in past non-economic losses and $4,000,000 in future non-economic losses.