San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog

We've written about Benetta Buell-Wilson before. Earlier this week, the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its' ruling that Ms. Wilson was entitled to $82.6 Million after the US Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals should review its' ruling.

Ms. Wilson was originally awarded $370 Million dollars by a San Diego Jury. The verdict was later reduced by the trial court to $102 Million and then to $82.6 Million by the Court of Appeal. However, when given the opportunity to reduce this verdict again, the Court of Appeal declined.

The Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. is important for several reasons. First, it was the first time that Ford was held responsible for injuries resulting from a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident. During the trial, Ms. Buell-Wilson's attorneys effectively proved that Ford was aware that the Explorer was dangerously unstable and prone to oversteer leading to rollovers. Ford also knew that in the event of a roll-over, the Explorer's roof was not strong enough to prevent crush. The cost of preventing rollover roof crushes was minimal, yet Ford refused to make he necessary changes. This is oddly reminiscent of prior Ford safety shortcomings; e.g., the Ford Pinto, use of Firestone ATX tires, etc.

Congratulations to Ms. Buell-Wilson. We hope that this latest ruling provides you with peace...after more than a decade of litigation against Ford's lawyers and unlimited bankroll.

UPDATE: Ms. Buell-Wilson is going to continue to wait for justice. Ford has decided to appeal the latest court ruling.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , New Case Law

Bookmark:

The US Supreme Court predictably refused to review a California Court of Appeals' ruling throwing out the bulk of a San Diego jury's verdict awarding developer Rocky de la Fuente $95 Million after the City of San Diego breached a development agreement and took steps to devalue the land upon which it was to built.

A Superior Court jury initially awarded De La Fuente $95 million in his dispute with the city over development of a 312-acre business park near the international border. With legal fees and interest, the potential payment by the city could have reached $150 million.

The developer had sued, alleging the city breached a development agreement he had over the park, and took a series of steps that devalued his land. Soon after the verdict, a judge threw out a portion of the verdict awarding $29.2 million over violations of the development agreement, but let the bulk of the award stand.

The city quickly hired outside lawyers to pursue the appeal. In June 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside overturned the rest of the case, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. The state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

The city is not quite out of the woods, however. A retrial on the $29 million claim over the reach of the development agreement still looms.

Didn't hear about this last week? Not surprising. The media loves to trumpet big verdicts, but doesn't mention when those big verdicts are reduced (see the Ford roll-over verdict below).

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: New Case Law

Bookmark:

Know all those HUGE, "outrageous" verdicts that tort reformers cite as proof that juries are out of their minds and are too plaintiff-friendly? This is the story of one such verdict and, unfortunately, it is not unusual.

In 2004, a San Diego jury awarded Benetta Buell-Wilson and her family nearly $370 Million dollars in a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident case. Now, the Supreme Court will review the verdict and possibly reduce it. The Supreme Court will be the third court to do so after the trial court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals both reduced the verdict from $122 Million in compensatory damages and $246 Million in punitive damages to $27.6 Million (compensatory) and $55 Million (punitive).

What happened to Benetta?:

On a January afternoon in 2002, Buell-Wilson was driving at a normal speed on Interstate 8 east of San Diego when she swerved to avoid a metal object that had fallen off a motor home. Her 1997 Explorer fishtailed and rolled over four times. Part of its roof was crushed, and Buell-Wilson suffered a severe spinal injury.

As a result of the accident, Benetta is now paralyzed and confined to a wheel-chair.

Now, Ford had previously won 13 trials without a loss. And they weren't shy about sharing that fact during litigation in the hopes of forcing Benetta and her husband to settle.

Plaintiffs were 0-13 and Benetta and her attorneys were risking a huge disappointment. These cases are not cheap to try. I've heard some estimates that Benetta's attorneys paid upwards of $750,000 to experts to prepare and try the case. And if they lost, the lawyers would lose that investment, Benetta would be forced to pay for all future care by herself out of her own pocket, and, worse still, Benetta would be forced to pay Ford's litigation costs.

Given all this risk, and the evidence that Ford knew of problems with its' vehicles for roof crush and roll over propensity, is $370 Million dollars outrageous to pay for a permanent injury and to punish Ford for its' callousness?

In fact, the problem had been well-documented for years:

No recall has ever been ordered for these vehicles. How many are still out on the road? How many more roof crush injuries or deaths will still occur? Will Ford EVER be forced to pay enough that they will consider the safety of their customers?

The Supreme Court should uphold the reduced verdict. Ford is already emboldened by the two prior reductions. No need to make it worse for consumer safety.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , New Case Law , Verdicts

Bookmark:

Prevailing parties just received help from the California Court of Appeals in obtaining full cost reimbursement after judgment. Our office wants to inform our clients, and other plaintiff attorneys, of this development so that they can maximize their hard won judgments.

In El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, No. F049334, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's ruling to award Yosemite Meat (as the prevailing party), nearly $150,000 in costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 1033.5(a)(12).

The facts of the case are these:

El Dorado filed suit against Yosemite Meat alleging a variety of causes of action, including violations of the California Unfair Competition Law . The lawsuit arose from El Dorado's claims that Yosemite Meats fraudulently sold boar meat to otherwise unsuspecting customers and illegally reduced their labor costs by employing undocumented immigrants. El Dorado claimed that these actions led it to be uncompetitive in the market and drove it out of business.

After trial before a jury (for some causes of action) and the court (for others), the court found in favor of Yosemite and entered judgment in favor of Yosemite.

As the prevailing party, Yosemite Meats served and filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover $194,704. El Dorado filed a motion to strike and tax costs pertaining to Yosemite Meat's attempt to recover $143,809 for "models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits."

Continue reading "Important New California Case Helps Prevailing Injury Victims; Could Lead to Abuse" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: New Case Law

Bookmark: