Jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck

[chanel]

An Oregon girl whose truck-driver father accidentally ran her over with his big rig has won $24.3 million in damages from the Portland company that a Sacramento judge found legally responsible for her injuries.

The personal-injury award handed down by a Superior Court jury last Friday to Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez is the largest in Sacramento County history, according to the local bar association.

In a court-trial decision returned Dec. 14, Judge David W. Abbott said the firm that hired Simon Loza Mejia, Freeway Transport Inc., was liable for the girl's injuries.

Before the damages phase of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench to exclude the jury from knowing it was the girl's father who accidentally drove over her. The plaintiff's lawyers argued it would have unduly prejudiced the panel.

Buccola, a veteran Sacramento trial lawyer who in 1998 won a $9.3 million award for a client that stood until last Friday as the local personal injury record, said Monday the father-daughter relationship was "legally irrelevant."

In a pre-trial brief filed last year, the defense lawyers said Loza-Jimenez was not a member of the general public eligible for protection under interstate transport regulations because her father took her along for the trip without Freeway Transport's knowledge.

Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.

I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?

 

[hjmick]

Comments?

Maybe Lindsay Lohan can win her case...

 

[jillian]

Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.

I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?

the guy wasn't awarded the money. his daughter was. and the jury shouldn't have known the father injured the girl because like you, they wouldn't have compensated her fairly for her injuries.

 

[Anguille]

An Oregon girl whose truck-driver father accidentally ran her over with his big rig has won $24.3 million in damages from the Portland company that a Sacramento judge found legally responsible for her injuries.

The personal-injury award handed down by a Superior Court jury last Friday to Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez is the largest in Sacramento County history, according to the local bar association.

In a court-trial decision returned Dec. 14, Judge David W. Abbott said the firm that hired Simon Loza Mejia, Freeway Transport Inc., was liable for the girl's injuries.

Before the damages phase of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench to exclude the jury from knowing it was the girl's father who accidentally drove over her. The plaintiff's lawyers argued it would have unduly prejudiced the panel.

Buccola, a veteran Sacramento trial lawyer who in 1998 won a $9.3 million award for a client that stood until last Friday as the local personal injury record, said Monday the father-daughter relationship was "legally irrelevant."

In a pre-trial brief filed last year, the defense lawyers said Loza-Jimenez was not a member of the general public eligible for protection under interstate transport regulations because her father took her along for the trip without Freeway Transport's knowledge.

Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.

I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?

He wasn't awarded the money, his daughter was.

 

[AllieBaba]

But..how is it the fault of the company if the guy's own bad judgment led to injuring his daughter?

How confusing.

 

[jillian]

But..how is it the fault of the company if the guy's own bad judgment led to injuring his daughter?

How confusing.

Respondeat Superior

(Latin: "let the master answer") is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.

define:Respondeat superior - Google Search

 

[Anguille]

An Oregon girl whose truck-driver father accidentally ran her over with his big rig has won $24.3 million in damages from the Portland company that a Sacramento judge found legally responsible for her injuries.

The personal-injury award handed down by a Superior Court jury last Friday to Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez is the largest in Sacramento County history, according to the local bar association.

In a court-trial decision returned Dec. 14, Judge David W. Abbott said the firm that hired Simon Loza Mejia, Freeway Transport Inc., was liable for the girl's injuries.

Before the damages phase of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench to exclude the jury from knowing it was the girl's father who accidentally drove over her. The plaintiff's lawyers argued it would have unduly prejudiced the panel.

Buccola, a veteran Sacramento trial lawyer who in 1998 won a $9.3 million award for a client that stood until last Friday as the local personal injury record, said Monday the father-daughter relationship was "legally irrelevant."

In a pre-trial brief filed last year, the defense lawyers said Loza-Jimenez was not a member of the general public eligible for protection under interstate transport regulations because her father took her along for the trip without Freeway Transport's knowledge.

Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.

I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?

He wasn't awarded the money, his daughter was.

 

[Dr Grump]

Utter stupidity...

 

[Big Black Dog]

Shit, for 24 million dollars, if I was assured that I would live afterwards, you could run over me with a truck!

 

[AllieBaba]

Me too.

 

[jillian]

Shit, for 24 million dollars, if I was assured that I would live afterwards, you could run over me with a truck!

if she got 24 million dollars, I'm pretty sure she wishes she were dead.

 

[jillian]

Utter stupidity...

which part?

 

[xsited1]

...

Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.

I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?

I was wondering how I was going to afford to send my kids to College. Now I know!

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll run over you if you'll run over me.

 

[Dr Grump]

Utter stupidity...

which part?

All of it.
1) It now sets a precedent that, although Allie and Existed are probably joking, for others to do the same
2) The judicial system should be about justice. There is nothing justified about a company having to pay for one of its employees stupidity.
3) In saying the above, unless the employer knew that the father was taking the daughter, then the responsibility lies with the father alone. It is called "taking responsibility for one's actions'. Anything less is just a cop out.
4) The jury should have been told that the victim's father was the truck driver. It is an absolute relevant fact in the case.

 

[chanel]

The girl was hurt badly and will require constant care, which the employer is responsible for. But the amount just seems outrageous. I believe if the jury knew it was the dad, she would have gotten half that.

And yes Ang, the 14 YEAR OLD daughter got the money. And who's in charge of it? We know nothing of this man's character except that he violated his own company's policy and is a bad driver. Hopefully, the money is in trust.

 

[jillian]

All of it.
1) It now sets a precedent that, although Allie and Existed are probably joking, for others to do the same
2) The judicial system should be about justice. There is nothing justified about a company having to pay for one of its employees stupidity.
3) In saying the above, unless the employer knew that the father was taking the daughter, then the responsibility lies with the father alone. It is called "taking responsibility for one's actions'. Anything less is just a cop out.
4) The jury should have been told that the victim's father was the truck driver. It is an absolute relevant fact in the case.

The law is that an employer is responsible for the actions of its employee if the employee is acting within the course of his duties. It has to do with who is more likely to be able to insure damages will be covered.

whether or not the girl was his daughter wasn't relevant to whether the father was negligent. had it been relevant to whether or not the daughter was negligent, it would have been given to the jury. in this instance, all that knowledge would have done is make the jury not want to compensate the girl and SHE isn't responsible for her injuries. Nor could her father likely compensate her for her injuries if the jury thought they were worth as much as they were.

what i will tell you is that the likelihood of the verdict being reduced on appeal is almost a 100% certainty, IMO.

 

[Anguille]

Utter stupidity...

which part?

All of it.
1) It now sets a precedent that, although Allie and Existed are probably joking, for others to do the same
2) The judicial system should be about justice. There is nothing justified about a company having to pay for one of its employees stupidity.
3) In saying the above, unless the employer knew that the father was taking the daughter, then the responsibility lies with the father alone. It is called "taking responsibility for one's actions'. Anything less is just a cop out.
4) The jury should have been told that the victim's father was the truck driver. It is an absolute relevant fact in the case.

The man who ran her over may have also been her father but when he ran her over he was on the job and an employer is responsible for the negligence of employees while they are operating company equipment.

If she had been run over by an employee of the company who was unrelated to her, would you still claim the company was not responsible?

 

[Dr Grump]

.

If she had been run over by an employee of the company who was unrelated to her, would you still claim the company was not responsible?

Yep...down here that is the case, although more and more are heading towards the US.

And at the end of the day, the employee wasn't unrelated to her, and that is a relevant fact, too.

With that particular criterion, I could spin it the other way - if the employee had NOT been her father, would she have been in that situation? No. She was in that situation as a direct result of her father's actions....

 

[xotoxi]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.