Paving contractors must move equipment from one end of the highway to another. Their vehicles are used to create a traffic break. This can lead to a high-speed accident.
Plaintiff was returning home from work as a Caltrans inspector on August 12, 2015. He was driving north on Highway 101, in the #1 lane of the Cuesta Grade. The highway was being repaved approximately three miles long at this point. Telfer was the general contractor. Anrak was the sub-contractor. Anrak had equipment available to remove the pavement, and Telfer was to lay new asphalt directly behind them. Anrak had set up its grinders in an area adjacent to the northbound (NB), lanes. It had originally planned to work in the southbound (SB), lanes on the night of the accident. This would require moving the grinders from its staging area to the SB lanes. Telfer suggested that it perform a traffic stop using its own vehicles, rather than asking for assistance from the CHP. Telfer required three vehicles to cover three NB lanes. Anrak was able to help Telfer, as it only had two vehicles. Anrak does not, according to its contract, participate in traffic control measures. It offered a 24-year old employee, who had never participated in a traffic break. The idea was for the vehicles to leave the staging area and cross three NB lanes before traveling SB to the Monterey Street on-ramp. The three vehicles would then turn around, cross the three NB lanes and travel SB to the Monterey Street off-ramp. Anrak employees attempted to cross the NB lanes, but failed to see oncoming traffic. Edward Clynes was driving the #1 lane NB vehicle at 67 mph. He saw the Anrak vehicle travelling perpendicularly across his lane and panicked. Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle at 60-65 mph and did not see that another vehicle had stopped. He then rear-ended the Clynes’ vehicle and suffered severe injuries.
Case Details
- Case Name: Bruce v. Telfer Technologies, et al.
- Court and case number: San Luis Obispo Superior Court/ 16 CV 0227
- Date Of Verdict Or Judgment: Friday, August 31, 2018
- Date Action Filed: Thursday May 19, 2016
- Types of Action: Negligence and Vehicles-Motorcycle
- Judge/Arbitrator(s),Hon. Barry T. LaBarbera
- Plaintiffs: Mickey Bruce
- Defendants: Anrak Corporation Telfer Highway Technologies California Department of Transportation
- Type: Jury Verdict
Verdict and Settlement
- Award or Gross Verdict:$5,510,000
- Award or Verdict: $3,691,700
- Each Defendant to be awarded: Telfer was held 50% responsible, Anrak 17%.California Department of Transportation was awarded a defense verdict.
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: 33%
- Economic Damages$1,010,000
- Non-Economic Damages:$4,500,000
- Arbitration or Trial Time:15 Days.
- Jury Deliberation Duration:2 Days.
- Post-Verdict Settlements & Motions After Trial: Motion to reopen trial. JNOV denied by Telfer October 3, 2018.
Personal Injury Lawyers
- Attorney for the Plaintiff Greg A. Coates Law Office, San Luis Obispo Walkup, Melodia and Kelly by Richard Schoenberger, San Francisco.
- Advocate for the Defendant Santa Maria: Epps and Gilroy, Darren W. Epps (For Anrak Corporation).Wait and Hufnagel by Robert A. Hufnagel in Claremont (For Telfer Highway Technologies)Ericksen Arbuthnot, Sharon L. Hightower San Jose (For California Department of Transportation
Expert Witnesses
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s). Michael T. Laird, M.D., orthopedics, Pismo Beach. (Treating physician.)Michael Burg, M.D. Emergency room procedures. (Treating physician.) Alex Barchuk M.D., Marin, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- The Medical Expert(s), Defendant: Steven Pearson, M.D. Orthopedics, Santa Barbara. (DME)
- The Technical Experts of Plaintiff: Mark Shattuck, Ph.D., accident reconstruction, Woodside. David Krauss Ph.D. Human factors, Los Angeles. Brian Samuel Iler, construction management, El Cajon. Stephen Hamilton, Ph.D., economics. Tracy Albee Ph.D. Life Care Planning, Tracy.
- Technical Expert(s), Defendant: Christian Engelmann, P.E. Traffic engineering, Livermore Thomas Fugger, accident reconstruction. Stein Husher, M.S., accident reconstruction, Camarillo. Steve Garets, motorcycle safety, Corvallis, OR.Jubin Merati, Ph.D., economics, Los Angeles. Chris Meyers, Ventura, Life Care Planning/ Vocational Rehabilitation.
Lawyers’ Closing Arguments
Plaintiff’s Contentions: Plaintiff argued that Telfer was negligent in its decision to use available CHP instead of performing its own traffic stop, as required by Caltrans specifications. Anrak was negligent in allowing an inexperienced employee perform a traffic stop against company policy. It is also vicariously responsible for its employee’s negligence in crossing the highway in an unsafe manner. Plaintiff also claimed that Caltrans was negligent in failing to notify Telfer that CHP was available on that night.
Defendant’s Contentions: Telfer claimed that it was not responsible for the traffic break, as it never took place. Anrak claimed that it had no direct responsibility for its employees because Telfer was responsible for his activities. Therefore, Anrak became a special employer. Caltrans claimed that Telfer was not informed of CHP presence by Caltrans. All defendants claimed that plaintiff was negligent, inattentive, and caused his own injuries.
Personal Injuries and Damages
- Plaintiff claims physical injuries Three surgeries were required to fix a severely fractured hip and pelvis.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed – Past Medical: $272,000
- Special Damages Claimed – Future Medical: $616,000
- Claimed Special Damages – Future Loss Earnings:$358,000
Demands and offers
- Plaintiff, SS998 Demand:$1,000,000 To Telfer August 2017, $2,000,000 To Anrak August 2017, $500,000 To Caltrans August 2017.
- Final Demand of the Plaintiff before Trial: $3,500,000 Demand made at mediation May 2017.
- Plaintiff Demand During Trial: $12,000,000 at Closing
- Defendant SS998 Offer: None.
- Final Offer to Defendant Before Trial: None
- Defendant Offer During Trial: Telfer offered $200,000 during jury deliberations.
