Scarlett Law Group's Client Verdict Top Verdicts in California - Traumatic Brain Injury

On Monday, November 7, 2011, a Modesto, California jury awarded the Scarlett Law Group’s 38-year-old plaintiff $10,651,423.13 after a two-month long, hard-fought, jury trial.

Plaintiff, a 38-year-old dry wall union worker was a passenger in his brother's Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck on his way to work from Modesto to Palo Alto California in the early morning hours (4:30 AM). Plaintiff was belted, sitting in the front passenger seat. Plaintiff's brother was driving, and the two had just left home approximately 10 minutes prior to the collision.

In order to get from Modesto, California over to Interstate 5 and ultimately into the bay area, plaintiff's brother had taken a two lane 55 mile an hour highway (Shoemake Avenue). Unbeknownst to either plaintiff or his brother, a local farmer was in the midst of harvesting grapes on approximately 200 acres adjoining Shoemake Avenue. Unfortunately, the farmer's practice was to utilize the westbound lane of Shoemake Avenue in order to offload the grapes from a grape gondola into truck trailers parked on the shoulder of the road. Virtually all of the westbound lane was blocked. It was extremely dark that morning, and the operator of the tractor/gondola utilized no flagman and only one cone. The defense nonetheless contended that the two lights and reflective tape on the rear of the gondola were sufficient, and cross-complained against plaintiff's brother. The defense additionally cross complained against an individual they contended was an independent contractor, who they alleged had directed the harvesting process utilizing Shoemake Avenue.

Randall H. Scarlett tried the case against the landowner/farmer utilizing two vicarious liability theories: peculiar risk and non-delegable duty. Under these theories of vicarious liability the jury is not asked to apportionment fault pursuant to Proposition 51. Scarlett also maintained a direct negligence claim based on the landowners negligent direction of the harvest process.

The jury's verdict was unanimous (12-0) on all liability theories. At significant expense, Mr. Scarlett reenacted a nighttime visibility study which was admitted into evidence. This demonstrative evidence was extremely persuasive. 

The jury awarded $624,880.13 in past medical expenses.

The jury awarded $2,526,543 representing the present value of plaintiff's diminution of earnings capacity.

The jury awarded $2 million representing the present value of plaintiff's future medical expense, as well as $2,500,000 in past non-economic damages, and $3 million in future non-economic damages.

On the direct negligence theory (for which apportionment under proposition 51 would apply), the jury awarded 95% fault against the defendant  farmer/landowner (defendants at trial) and spread the remaining 5% among two defendants with whom Scarlett had settled pretrial for their policy limits of approximately $1 million each.

The defendant farmer/landowner was defensed on its cross complaint against plaintiff's brother, and also on its cross-complaint against the purported independent contractor. In fact, the jury found the purported independent contractor to be an agent of the defendant farmer/landowner working within course and scope.