Case details

Driver claimed intoxicated pedestrian ran in front of vehicle

SUMMARY

$0

Amount

Verdict-Defendant

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
brain, brain damage, brain injury, cognition, impairment, mental, psychological, traumatic brain injury
FACTS
During the evening of Oct. 31, 2014, Halloween, plaintiff Jamie Dizon, 17, a high school student, was proceeding from the northeast corner of Sard Street into the intersection with Hillside Road, in Rancho Cucamonga. Hillside Road had no streetlights casting light onto it, and Jamie was wearing a black, sheer Halloween costume. Jamie also later admitted to being intoxicated, which affected her judgment. While in the intersection, Jamie was struck by the front end of a mid-size vehicle operated by Meirong Deng, who was westbound on Hillside Road. Jamie landed on the hood of Deng’s car, was thrown onto the roof, and then rolled off into the street. She sustained to her head, pelvis and lower back. Jamie sued Deng, alleging that Deng was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Jamie claimed that she entered the intersection by walking from the curb on Sard Street and that she had reached the eastbound lane at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Deng was traveling too fast for the conditions and was distracted. Counsel also contended that Deng failed to keep a proper lookout, in that she failed to observe hundreds of young people who were in the area going to a party at a house on the south side of Hillside Road, where Jamie was headed. Counsel further contended that Deng didn’t brake before impact and that Deng somehow steered into the eastbound lane, where Jamie was located, when the impact occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel chose not to call their accident reconstruction expert, who opined that Jamie would have been visible to Deng at such a distance that Deng would have been able to perceive Jamie, apply her brakes and stop in time to avoid the impact. Given that Jamie was wearing black clothing and had admitted to being intoxicated, plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that Jamie bore some fault for the accident. In closing, counsel asked the jury to apportion 80 percent liability to Deng and 20 percent liability to Jamie. Deng denied fault, claiming that Jamie ran into the intersection from the middle of Sard Street and entered her path of travel. Deng claimed the accident was entirely Jamie’s fault. Defense counsel argued that Jamie, who was admittedly intoxicated, came out from behind cars parked along the curb to her left, which obstructed Deng’s view, and proceeded across Hillside Road without looking. Counsel also argued that, in wearing dark clothing, Jamie couldn’t be seen within the darkened area of the road to ascertain that she was there before the accident. An independent witness who was standing next to the driver’s door of her car on the south side of Hillside Road at the time of the accident testified about the conditions that night, disputing the presence of hundreds of young people out and about, and claiming that there were only a few kids on the road, but most were at the house party that Jamie headed to with her boyfriend. The independent witness also testified that, at one point, she saw Jamie talking with a group of people at the northwest area on Sard Street and that when she turned away from Jamie and the group and looked east, she could see the headlights of Deng’s vehicle approaching. She estimated that its speed was 20 to 25 mph on a road that defense counsel noted had a speed limit of 35 mph and that within a few seconds of her observation, she heard someone yelling, “Wait, wait, wait,” followed by the sound of the collision. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert was not called, but would have testified that Deng was traveling at a reasonable speed for the conditions and that Deng would not have been able to avoid the accident, as there were no streetlights and Jamie was coming from one dark area to another while wearing dark clothing. The expert opined that given the conditions, Deng would not have reacted in time to stop and that the accident could have been avoided had Jamie looked to her left and waited for Deng to pass., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Jamie sustained a fractured pelvis and a lumbar disc injury in her lower back. She also claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury. Jamie was taken by ambulance to San Antonio Community Hospital, in Upland, but was later sent as a potential trauma patient to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, in Colton. She ultimately underwent surgery on her lumbar spine. Jamie claimed she suffers from cognitive deficits that caused problems in school, as she was an A/B student prior to the accident and was a C/D student after the incident. She also claimed she suffers constant pain in her lower back and pelvis area that have affected her life and reduced her level of activity. Jamie alleged that she will possibly need future treatment for her orthopedic . Jamie sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.
COURT
Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case