SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 5
Appellate Court
 Rules that Jurors
  Erred in Finding
No Pre-Death Pain
  and Suffering in
     Bus Accident
By John Hochfelder on August 30, 2012 Posted in Wrongful Death
On June 18, 2005, Luisa Sanchez was walking across 163rd Street in the
Bronx when the 28 year old woman was struck by a city sanitation truck.

Ms. Sanchez was found by the truck driver lying in the street behind his
truck. She was bleeding from her ears, nose and the back of her head and
she was uncommunicative. She’d sustained blunt trauma to her head
resulting in a subdural hematoma and brain contusions.

Several emergency surgical procedures were performed to try to relieve
the intracranial brain pressure but Ms. Sanchez lapsed into a coma from
which she never emerged and died from her injuries 10 months later after
several bouts of pneumonia and the onset of sepsis (severe infections).

A lawsuit was brought by the decedent’s mother on behalf of Ms.
Sanchez’s five year old daughter seeking damages for pre-death pain and
suffering, loss of parental guidance and other economic losses.

The city claimed that its driver was not negligent because Sanchez crossed
in the middle of the street and there were two posted signs at the site
prohibiting pedestrians from crossing.
On February 11, 2010, a jury determined that both parties were negligent
    (the city driver 30%, Sanchez 70%) and assessed $870,000 in damages
    (before apportionment) as follows:

•   $245,000 past medical expenses (agreed to by both sides)
•   $150,000 for future lost earnings (13 years)
•   $325,000 for loss of parental guidance (13 years) and
•   $150,000 for loss of household services (13 years)

    The trial judge issued a lengthy decision upholding the verdict.

    Plaintiff successfully appealed the refusal to award any pain and suffering
    damages arguing that there was evidence (from first responders at the
    scene) that, for at least 10 minutes, Ms. Sanchez was somewhat conscious
    and experienced pain.

    In Sanchez v. City of New York (1st Dept. 2012), the appeals court held
    that Ms. Sanchez "showed some signs of consciousness, if not awareness"
    and experienced "some level of pain and suffering during her interludes of
    consciousness." This was enough to require an award for pre-death pain
    and suffering and the judges determined that $400,000 is the minimum
    acceptable amount under the facts of this case.
The appellate court also addressed additional elements of damages as
    follows:
•   affirmed the $325,000 loss of parental guidance award (on
    appeal, plaintiff had argued for an increase to $1,500,000)
•   increased the lost earnings award to include $77,000 for the period
    before death
•   increased the future loss of household services award from $150,000 to
    $300,000
•   Parental guidance damages are meant to compensate a child for the
    economic loss of a parent’s nurture and care as well as the
    physical, mental and intellectual training by a parent. Under New York
    law, damages are not recoverable for a child’s sorrow, mental anguish or
    loss of parental companionship.

    The award for loss of household services, in this case, is intended to
    compensate Ms. Sanchez’s daughter for the value of her mother’s services
    (such as laundry, cooking, cleaning and shopping). Plaintiff’s expert
    economist, Alan Leiken, Ph.D., testified that the value of such services
    through the daughter’s 21st birthday, would be $345,000.

    The total award as modified by the appellate court now stands, before
    apportionment, at $1,496,000 (an increase of $626,000);
    however, because of the 70/30 liability split, plaintiff’s actual recovery
    will be $449,000.
Inside Information:

•   Plaintiff’s attorney conceded that the decedent was negligent. In his
    closing argument, counsel stated that the jurors would be correct in
    assigning 15% of the fault to plaintiff.
•   Defense counsel suggested to the jury that if they found any liability on
    defendant’s part then $75,000 would be appropriate for pre-death pain
    and suffering. Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $750,000.
•   Plaintiff asked the jury for $2,000,000 for loss of parental guidance while
    defense counsel suggested $150,000.
•   During trial, plaintiff rejected a settlement offer of $500,000.



    POSTED BY ATTORNEY RENE G. GARCIA:

    For more information:- Some of our clients have suffered this kind of
    injuries due to a serious accident. The Garcia Law Firm, P.C. was able to
    successfully handle these types of cases. For a free consultation please
    call us at 1-866- SCAFFOLD or 212-725-1313.

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von Rene Garcia

Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itReflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itRene Garcia
 
Nursing negligence
Nursing negligenceNursing negligence
Nursing negligenceRene Garcia
 
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Rene Garcia
 
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiBiography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiRene Garcia
 
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRoad traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRene Garcia
 
Nightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentNightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentRene Garcia
 
Spinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationSpinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationRene Garcia
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1Rene Garcia
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1Rene Garcia
 
Traumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryTraumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryRene Garcia
 
Overview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryOverview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryRene Garcia
 
Occupational asthma
Occupational asthmaOccupational asthma
Occupational asthmaRene Garcia
 

Mehr von Rene Garcia (15)

Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is itReflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy, what is it
 
Nursing negligence
Nursing negligenceNursing negligence
Nursing negligence
 
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
Delayed diagnosis of spinal tumor results in $
 
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part iiBiography of christopher reeves part ii
Biography of christopher reeves part ii
 
Paralysis
ParalysisParalysis
Paralysis
 
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular traumaRoad traffic accidents and ocular trauma
Road traffic accidents and ocular trauma
 
Tmj
TmjTmj
Tmj
 
Nightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accidentNightmare after a car accident
Nightmare after a car accident
 
Facial trauma
Facial traumaFacial trauma
Facial trauma
 
Spinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniationSpinal disc herniation
Spinal disc herniation
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
 
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
New no fault regulations to take effect april 1
 
Traumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injuryTraumatic brain injury
Traumatic brain injury
 
Overview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgeryOverview of hand surgery
Overview of hand surgery
 
Occupational asthma
Occupational asthmaOccupational asthma
Occupational asthma
 

Appellate court rules that jurors erred in finding

  • 1. Appellate Court Rules that Jurors Erred in Finding No Pre-Death Pain and Suffering in Bus Accident
  • 2. By John Hochfelder on August 30, 2012 Posted in Wrongful Death On June 18, 2005, Luisa Sanchez was walking across 163rd Street in the Bronx when the 28 year old woman was struck by a city sanitation truck. Ms. Sanchez was found by the truck driver lying in the street behind his truck. She was bleeding from her ears, nose and the back of her head and she was uncommunicative. She’d sustained blunt trauma to her head resulting in a subdural hematoma and brain contusions. Several emergency surgical procedures were performed to try to relieve the intracranial brain pressure but Ms. Sanchez lapsed into a coma from which she never emerged and died from her injuries 10 months later after several bouts of pneumonia and the onset of sepsis (severe infections). A lawsuit was brought by the decedent’s mother on behalf of Ms. Sanchez’s five year old daughter seeking damages for pre-death pain and suffering, loss of parental guidance and other economic losses. The city claimed that its driver was not negligent because Sanchez crossed in the middle of the street and there were two posted signs at the site prohibiting pedestrians from crossing.
  • 3. On February 11, 2010, a jury determined that both parties were negligent (the city driver 30%, Sanchez 70%) and assessed $870,000 in damages (before apportionment) as follows: • $245,000 past medical expenses (agreed to by both sides) • $150,000 for future lost earnings (13 years) • $325,000 for loss of parental guidance (13 years) and • $150,000 for loss of household services (13 years) The trial judge issued a lengthy decision upholding the verdict. Plaintiff successfully appealed the refusal to award any pain and suffering damages arguing that there was evidence (from first responders at the scene) that, for at least 10 minutes, Ms. Sanchez was somewhat conscious and experienced pain. In Sanchez v. City of New York (1st Dept. 2012), the appeals court held that Ms. Sanchez "showed some signs of consciousness, if not awareness" and experienced "some level of pain and suffering during her interludes of consciousness." This was enough to require an award for pre-death pain and suffering and the judges determined that $400,000 is the minimum acceptable amount under the facts of this case.
  • 4. The appellate court also addressed additional elements of damages as follows: • affirmed the $325,000 loss of parental guidance award (on appeal, plaintiff had argued for an increase to $1,500,000) • increased the lost earnings award to include $77,000 for the period before death • increased the future loss of household services award from $150,000 to $300,000 • Parental guidance damages are meant to compensate a child for the economic loss of a parent’s nurture and care as well as the physical, mental and intellectual training by a parent. Under New York law, damages are not recoverable for a child’s sorrow, mental anguish or loss of parental companionship. The award for loss of household services, in this case, is intended to compensate Ms. Sanchez’s daughter for the value of her mother’s services (such as laundry, cooking, cleaning and shopping). Plaintiff’s expert economist, Alan Leiken, Ph.D., testified that the value of such services through the daughter’s 21st birthday, would be $345,000. The total award as modified by the appellate court now stands, before apportionment, at $1,496,000 (an increase of $626,000); however, because of the 70/30 liability split, plaintiff’s actual recovery will be $449,000.
  • 5. Inside Information: • Plaintiff’s attorney conceded that the decedent was negligent. In his closing argument, counsel stated that the jurors would be correct in assigning 15% of the fault to plaintiff. • Defense counsel suggested to the jury that if they found any liability on defendant’s part then $75,000 would be appropriate for pre-death pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $750,000. • Plaintiff asked the jury for $2,000,000 for loss of parental guidance while defense counsel suggested $150,000. • During trial, plaintiff rejected a settlement offer of $500,000. POSTED BY ATTORNEY RENE G. GARCIA: For more information:- Some of our clients have suffered this kind of injuries due to a serious accident. The Garcia Law Firm, P.C. was able to successfully handle these types of cases. For a free consultation please call us at 1-866- SCAFFOLD or 212-725-1313.