Case details

Driver claimed pedestrian darted out into street





Result type

Not present

ankle, anxiety, back, dental, face, impairment, knee, mental, neck, psychological, sensory, speech, tooth loss, vision
On Nov. 1, 2010, plaintiff Young Soo Park, 65, a retiree, was crossing southbound Wilshire Place to northbound Wilshire Place, near the intersection with 7th Street, when he was struck by a 2010 Prius operated by Roxanne Hart. Park claimed to his face, neck, back, knee, and ankle. Park sued Hart, alleging that Hart was negligent in the operation of the Prius. Choi Yum Bu and Chung Joo Sung D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D., were also initially named as defendants, but the matter ultimately continued against Hart only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the accident occurred as a result of Hart’s negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. Counsel called witnesses who testified that Hart was going “very fast,” that Park entered on a green light, and that Park was inside the crosswalk at time of impact. Plaintiff’s counsel also presented a number of exhibits, including aerial printouts of the accident site via Google maps, a photo from the Korean newspaper showing Park on the ground being treated by emergency personnel, and an animation of the accident that included multiple views of Park being impacted by the car and thrown with his legs up. In addition, the plaintiff’s chiropractic and accident reconstruction expert opined that Hart was traveling at 11 mph at the time of impact. Hart claimed that Park darted out into the roadway and that Park entered the street on a “DON’T WALK” sign. Thus, she claimed she had no opportunity to see Park or avoid the accident. Defense counsel pointed out that Park’s evidence/ were inconsistent with an impact with a “fast” moving car, and the defense’s biomechanical expert testified that the impact occurred at only 7 mph. Defense counsel also argued that there many problems with the plaintiff’s animation, namely, that the animation lacked foundation due to the data relied upon and program used. Specifically, counsel contended that the plaintiff’s animation was skewed to only take into account one side of the facts and that the animation violated multiple rules of physics. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that defense counsel presented the only named witness in the police report who testified that Park was essentially a dart-out who jumped in front of Hart’s car on a “DON’T WALK” sign., Park sustained a tuft fracture of the left toe, a loss of teeth, and abrasions and contusions throughout his body. He was subsequently taken to an emergency room. He then underwent four months of chiropractic care, two visits to a podiatrist, and one visit to a cardiologist. In addition, Park claimed the accident caused him to suffer heart problems and tearing of the eyes, resulting in poor eyesight. Park painted a dreary picture of a life-changed as a result of the incident. His daughter testified that her father is no longer able to play sports, tend to the grandkids, or pray because of difficulty with walking, bending his knees, and anxiety following the accident. The plaintiff’s chiropractic and accident reconstruction expert opined that Park will require a lifetime of medical treatment in the form of one or two chiropractic visits per month for the rest of his life in order to treat ongoing symptoms and issues that Park has in his neck, back and ankles. The expert also opined that Park’s future medical costs will amount to $36,000. Thus, Park sought recovery of $12,597 in medical costs, which included $1,420 for the ambulance, $1,867 for the E.R. visit, $4,020 in chiropractic bills, $1,200 for the cardiology consultation, $3,400 for the podiatrist, and $690 for X-rays. He also sought recovery of damages for his pain and suffering. The defense’s emergency medicine expert testified as to the minimal damages sustained by Park, and opined that Park’s condition should have resolved on its own within a few months. The expert also opined that Park’s claim of dental issues, eye problems and cardiology symptoms were overreaching and unrelated to the subject accident. In addition, the defense expert pointed out that Park had not returned to any medical provider for treatment of his alleged since March 2011. In addition, defense counsel questioned the true extent of Park’s , noting that Park was well enough for four or five days after the accident to walk around looking for witnesses.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Torrance, CA

Recommended Experts


Get a FREE consultation for your case