Verdicts / Settlements - Defendants

James Warner v. State of California

Facts

On November 30, 1992 falsework for the 105/405 bridge interchange collapsed causing Plaintiff and two other workers to fall 30 feet. Plaintiff, age 30, was a falsework carpenter employed by Kasler Corporation, which had been hired by Defendant Caltrans. Falsework is the temporary structure that supports the form into which the concrete is poured to form the road bed. At the time of the collapse, Plaintiff was involved in removing the upper tier falsework 30 feet above the ground. Kasler dismantled the falsework by taking it down one side at a time. This procedure had been used for more than a year without difficulty. In this case, it was determined that the process of "jacking" in the removal process created an overturning movement that led to the collapse.

Plaintiff had been previously injured in a 1985 work accident which resulted in back surgeries in 1985, 1986 and 1987 in which his back was fused from T10 to L2. Plaintiff spent another year in rehabilitation, returning to work in 1989 against his treating doctor's orders. He went to work for Kasler Corp. in 1990 as a falsework carpenter, was off work for 5 months in 1992, (90 day suspension for smoking marijuana on the job and 2 months off to rest his back), and had just returned to work for Kasler a week before the accident.

Plaintiff

This collapse was foreseeable because of an incident that occurred a year earlier on this project; in September 1991, another section of double tier falsework had collapsed. Caltrans determined that it had been caused by the settling of the freeway over a period of months. As a result of this collapse, changes were made in the State's falsework manual. Plaintiff contended that if the State engineers had applied the changes set forth in the manual, they would have prevented the removal procedure that caused the collapse; that although the mechanisms of the September 1991 and November 1992 collapses were different, the underlying cause of each was the same. Plaintiff contended that even if State personnel on the job site did not understand and apply the lessons of the 1991 event, Caltrans personnel in Sacramento should have seen to it that the policies and procedures of Caltrans were carried out. Plaintiffs contended that they were just following the work methods and practices of their employers.

Plaintiff contended that prior to this incident, he was fully capable of doing falsework carpentry, as evidenced by his ongoing employment and participation in strenuous recreational activity; that his preaccident drug use was occasional; that he had never before been arrested nor disciplined on any job for being under the influence; that the suspension for smoking marijuana on the job site was an aberration. Plaintiff contended that he had established an earning capacity of $40,000; that his 1992 earnings of $22,000 were not indicative of his true earning capacity. Plaintiff contended that his increased drug use following the accident was a result of his attempt to selfmedicate for pain and his reduced impulse control caused by frontal lobe damage suffered in this incident.

Defendant

Contended that Defendant hired Kasler for its specific expertise; that Kasler was in complete control of the job site; that Kasler had trained personnel, including falsework engineers, who would have recognized and applied the lessons of the September 1991 collapse, had they been applicable; that Caltrans participation was limited to insuring that its plans and specifications were met. Defendant contended that the November 1992 collapse occurred because Plaintiffs were jacking on the structure; that this was a completely different mechanism than the downward deflection of the freeway in the September 1991 accident; that the movements of the falsework just before the accident should have warned Plaintiffs of the falsework's instability; that Plaintiffs should have been tied off to the superstructure.

Defendant contended that Plaintiff, by his own admission, was in pain daily prior to the instant accident as a result of three previous back surgeries; that Plaintiff suffered only minor brain damage which had resolved by the time of trial; that any cognitive problems were brought on by Plaintiff's drug abuse. Defendant introduced evidence of Plaintiff's three felony convictions for possession/sale of methamphetamine in 1993, 1994 and early 1996. Plaintiff pled guilty to all three felonies. Defendant contended that Plaintiff's work prospects before the accident were limited by his polysubstance abuse and his preexisting back injury, and further limited by the three felony convictions. Defendant contended that further back surgery would have occurred even absent this accident; that the reflexive sympathetic dystrophy was improving and would resolve within another year.

Demand

$4 million for all three Plaintiffs (no discussion as to individual case once it became clear Defendant was not going to offer more than $500,000 total).

Offer

$500,000 total to all three Plaintiffs.

Verdict

$1,261,300 net of $2,386,300 gross verdict ($386,300 economic and $2 million noneconomic damages) with Defendant Caltrans held 43.75% liable and employer Kasler Co. held 56.25% liable. On Sept. 25 Judge Garrott ordered a new trial on liability, finding that there was insufficient factual basis for a finding of liability against the State on actions for dangerous condition of public property and negligence. Plaintiff's appealed the order for a new trial and Defendant's counter-appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict. On July 9, 1998 the Second Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Superior Court, directing it to enter judgment in favor of the State of California. The California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's Writ of Review.

Jury Poll

120 to 93 on variety of special verdict questions

Notes

This case was consolidated with two others with liability issue tried jointly but separate verdicts returned on each case in damage phase (See CRA #7733 and #7735).

Trial Time

38 days

Jury Out

2-1/2 days on liability; 2 days on damages

See Neubauer's Confidential Report for Attorneys, No. 7734