News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Client Alert: Meser v. Bound Brook Board of Education

WSHB Trial Update: Ventura Jury Rejects Plaintiff $14.5 Million+ Demand

September 10, 2015

In a case involving the claims of a dangerous roadway condition causing paraplegia of a motorcyclist, a 12-person jury returned a nearly unanimous verdict in favor of County of Ventura after deliberating for less than four hours. WSHB attorneys R. Gregory Amundson and Yvette D. Kohan lead a legal team representing the County of Ventura in a 4-week trial which was completed to verdict on August 31, 2015.

On September 27, 2007, Humberto Martinez lost control of his motorcycle while driving along Box Canyon Road in the County of Ventura, a curvy mountainous road. As he came over the crest, multiple witnesses observed him wobbling and swerving, eventually sliding off the roadway onto the shoulder. Within seconds, he was flipped over the handlebars back onto the roadway. The force of impact caused permanent spinal cord injury, resulting in paraplegia. Plaintiff alleged that a drain inlet and berm within the shoulder constituted a dangerous condition that caused him to suffer catastrophic injuries.

This claim was initially tried in 2012, and the jury determined that, while the roadway contained a dangerous condition which was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s damages, the County of Ventura was entitled to Governmental design immunity. Plaintiff appealed, and the California Court of Appeal, Second District, ruled that the County of Ventura had not presented evidence sufficient to support its design immunity. The case was remanded for retrial, with the stipulation that the jury be instructed there was a dangerous roadway condition that was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the County of Ventura could no longer assert a design immunity defense.

WSHB attorneys Amundson and Kohan were brought in as lead counsel for the re-trial. Faced with the Court of Appeal ruling that there was a dangerous condition that caused plaintiffs injuries and damages, they argued that it was plaintiff who bore significant fault for causing his own accident. Evidence confirmed that he was familiar with the roadway, riding it daily for years. While plaintiff claimed he would have regained control and returned safely to the roadway but for the drain inlet and berm, all three eyewitnesses to the accident confirmed plaintiff was out of control long before leaving the roadway, never appearing to regain control before flipping over. Defense counsel elicited testimony from experts, who detailed the fact that plaintiff was first seen out of control at least 350 yards from his alleged impact with the drain. As such, all he had to do was slow down and stop his sports bike to avoid the accident. Instead, his inexperience and appetite for risk caused him to proceed full speed ahead, which was ultimately the cause of the accident.

Prior to trial, Plaintiff demanded in excess of $10 million to settle. In closing arguments, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a jury award in excess of $14 million. Ultimately, the jury found plaintiff 99% responsible for causing his own accident, allocating only 1% liability against County of Ventura, which was the minimum fault allocation per the prior ruling of the Court of Appeal. Thus, the jury’s minimal award of damages in the amount of $1,567,295 results in a net verdict in favor of plaintiff for only $15,672.95.

Plaintiff’s long-time companion, Liliana Ramirez, also sought loss of consortium damages. Defense counsel argued that Mr. Martinez and Ms. Ramirez were not legally married; thus, she was not entitled to any damages. The jury agreed, unanimously finding that plaintiffs were not legally married and Ms. Ramirez was entitled to no award. Prior to trial, Ms. Ramirez had demanded $2.5 million dollars to resolve her claim.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required