Contact Us

Contact Us

When insurance companies are looking out for themselves - we are here to look out for you

Get in touch with us

Call for a Free Consultation

Serving Central California

Specializing Exclusively in Personal Injury Since 1975

San Jose Electrician Receives $475,000 for Injuries Caused by Drunk Coworker

San Jose Electrician Receives $475,000 for Injuries Caused by Drunk Coworker

Posted By DLF || 23-Apr-2015

In January 2012, an apprentice electrician (plaintiff) was doing electrical work at an office in Mountain View, California with his immediate supervisor, a journeyman electrician (defendant). The defendant offered to take the plaintiff out for lunch, and they got into the defendant’s car and headed out for a meal.

The defendant had a history of substance abuse problems, and though those around him thought he was clean and sober, he was actually far from it. The defendant drove the plaintiff from the Mountain View office to Sunnyvale, California, where the defendant picked up his girlfriend. Over the course of an extended lunch break, the defendant drank and argued with his girlfriend while the plaintiff waited to be driven back to work. When that time eventually came, the defendant’s argument with his girlfriend escalated, with the two bitterly yelling at each other in the vehicle while the captive plaintiff asked to be returned to work.

At one point, the defendant ordered his girlfriend out of the car. When she refused to leave, the defendant flew into a rage, slamming on the gas and tearing through the streets of Sunnyvale. The plaintiff and the girlfriend begged the defendant to stop, and watched the speedometer climb to 100 mph as he flew northbound down Wolfe Road in Sunnyvale. At this point the plaintiff was screaming for him to slow down, but the defendant was crazed and ignored the pleas.

As the vehicle crossed Arques Avenue, the defendant lost control, driving off the right side of the road, taking out trees planted along the sidewalk, and rolling the vehicle multiple times all the way into the parking lot of the nearby Lowe’s Home Improvement store. After the plaintiff helped the defendant out of the vehicle, the defendant fled the immediate area. He was later convicted of drunk driving and hit and run violations.

The plaintiff faces a long road to recovery. Though he only needed basic emergency care and suffered no fractures, he suffered nerve damage throughout his c-spine, causing bilateral parethesia (tingling, pricking) in his arms. After trying to conservatively treat the injury with medication and injections for three years, it was clear he required a cervical fusion, which he is planning on completing in 2016.

Initially The Dunnion Law Firm attorneys faced the problem of making sure there were adequate funds to go after for the plaintiff. The defendant, who was in his 20s, had no money of his own, and an insurance policy of only $25,000. Thankfully, he had borrowed his father’s vehicle temporarily, and his father carried an insurance policy of $500,000. If Dunnion attorneys could establish that the father negligently entrusted his vehicle to his son, the father’s $500,000 insurance policy would cover the plaintiff for the loss. After much discovery, negligent entrustment was definitively established in depositions of the father and son. In those depositions it was shown that the father was aware of his son’s substance abuse problems, but irresponsibly felt his son was a competent driver because of his son’s complete recovery after battling substance abuse. Problematically, the father admitted that the only basis for this conclusion was the son’s statements that he no longer had a substance abuse problem. In other words, the father had not independently verified anything, and was relying only on his addict son for an honest representation of his progress in battling substance abuse. By the conclusion of the deposition it was clearly established that he had reason to believe his son was incompetent to drive his vehicle, and had departed from the standard of care in entrusting his vehicle to his son. With that, the plaintiff had the potential to recover $500,000.

Until shortly before trial, the defense offered $0. The defendants’ attorneys claimed that plaintiff had preexisting back issues, knew defendant was drunk and still drove with him, and that his surgery would not be necessary. The defense further argued that plaintiffs conservative care was too expensive, and that they need not pay plaintiff’s full medical bills.

Shortly before the Monterey, California trial, the defense offered $200,000, then $300,000, then $475,000 to settle the matter. The plaintiff accepted $475,000.

Categories: Auto Accident