Case details

Car accident crushed plaintiff’s femoral artery, lawsuit alleged





Result type

Not present

depression, disfigurement, leg, mental, psychological, scar
On Nov. 20, 2016, plaintiff Christine Shui, 31, was a passenger in a sport utility vehicle that pulled over to the side of State Route 60, in Montebello, after it was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident. At the same time, Antonio Garcia was driving a box truck on SR-60 when he was involved in a collision with a sedan that was traveling in the adjacent right lane. The force of the impact pushed the sedan into Shui, who was standing outside of her SUV on the side of the road while her driver was exchanging information with another motorist. Shui became pinned between the SUV and the out-of-control sedan and sustained an injury to her leg. Shui sued Garcia and the owner of the box truck, Garcia’s employer, B.R. & Sons. Shui alleged that Garcia was negligent in the operation of the box truck and that B.R. & Sons was vicariously liable for Garcia’s actions. Shui’s counsel contended that Garcia unsafely attempted to move into the sedan’s lane without ensuring that the lane was clear. Counsel argued that as a result, Garcia’s box truck struck the sedan, sending it toward Shui and her SUV. Defense counsel originally asserted that the driver of the sedan was at fault for the cash, as the sedan hit the box truck first. Counsel also asserted that the car’s driver may have lost control due to the rainy conditions or that the car’s driver was unsafely trying to move into the left lane when the collision occurred. However, Garcia ultimately conceded liability the day before trial. Thus, the trial solely addressed damages., Shui sustained significant open wounds to her left leg, including a crushed femoral artery in that leg. She was placed in an ambulance and was transported to Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, in Los Angeles, where she underwent an immediate graft surgery to repair the damaged artery. She remained in the hospital for the next 30 days. During that time, she underwent multiple skin grafting and debridement procedures on her left leg. After Shui was released, she required additional wound care, physical therapy and outpatient treatment. She also developed a blockage at the site of the artery injury and required an angioplasty to remove the clot in May 2017. Shui’s last treatment for her leg took place in December 2018, when she was eight months pregnant. She developed swelling in her left leg and took herself to LAC+USC Medical Center’s emergency room to get the injury checked out. Shui claimed she will need additional grafting and angioplasties on her left leg. Her doctors specifically claimed that Shui will need one or two of those surgeries every 10 years and that Shui will need one graft surgery for every three angioplasties she receives. Shui further stated that the accident left her with scarring on her left leg. She claimed she will eventually require plastic surgery to cover up the scars, specifically steroid injections, fat grafts and laser revision. Shui was also examined by a psychologist as part of the litigation. The expert psychologist diagnosed Shui with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder with depression. As a result, the expert recommended that Shui undergo future counseling, behavior therapy and marriage counseling. Shui claimed that her injury makes it hard for her to walk up an incline or walk for more than 30 minutes at a time. She also claimed she can no longer hike, ski, or play badminton. Shui waived her claim for past medical expenses. She sought recovery of her future medical expenses and for her past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Shui approximately $32 million in total damages. Shui’s husband, Julius Shui, filed a derivative claim that settled before trial for $400,000. The defense’s life care planning and billing experts disputed the cost of Ms. Shui’s alleged future medical care. In addition, defense counsel questioned whether all of Ms. Shui’s alleged future treatment was necessary.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA

Recommended Experts


Get a FREE consultation for your case