The jury in Alterman v. Zep Construction awarded punitive damages against both defendants: $100,000 against Zep Construction, and $50,000 against Traffic Control Products.  

The jury found that both defendants’ actions had been unreasonably motivated by desire for financial gain.  The jury polled 6-0 in favor of the verdict in the punitive damages phase.

CVN webcast the entire Alterman v. Zep Construction trial live.

The jury in Alterman v. Zep Construction awarded the plaintiff approximately $4.5 million in compensatory damages, $4M of which was for Tyler Brashear’s loss of his father.

The jury assigned 65% negligence to Zep Construction; 30% negligence to Traffic Control Products, and 5% negligence to Pablo Merlos, the driver of the truck.

The jury also found by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages were warranted against both Zep Construction and Traffic Control Products.  

As a result, the punitive damages phase of the trial will begin tomorrow (Thursday, February 25th) at 9:30am Eastern Time.

CVN will continue to webcast the Alterman v. Zep Construction trial video live. 

Aram Megerian, representing Traffic Control Products, began his opening statement by asserting that “Pablo Merlos was the sole cause of this accident because he was not paying attention for at least 10.5 seconds before [the accident.]” He did virtually nothing for those 10.5 seconds. Megerian then counted to ten seconds, “One-one-thousand, Two-one-thousand…”

According to Megerian, the truck driver did not apply his brakes until the very last second. “After hitting James Brashear’s car, and 10 other vehicles, the truck traveled another 200 feet.” Megerian said there was “no doubt” that the truck was traveling at 70 miles per hour.

Mejerian said that the truck driver “was given more than enough warning, and he chose to ignore every one of those warnings.” First, there was a “construction ahead” sign, approximately 2 miles before the construction. “He did not turn off his cruise control. He did not become more alert.”

Megerian urged the jury not to allocate any damages to Traffic Control Products (TCP) because TCP was not responsible for safety at the time of the accident, and did not plan the rolling roadblock, even if one TCP employee participated in the rolling roadblock.

But in any case, Mejerian urged that Tyler Brashear would be more than adequately compensated by $700K-$750K, rather than the plaintiff’s suggestion of $500K/year for 60+ years, which would be more than $30M.  Houses cost $250K, said Mejerian; cars cost $20K. 

Defense attorney Greg Giannuzzi, representing Zep Construction, challenged the plaintiff’s characterization of events.

Giannuzzi began by challenging the credibility of the plaintiff’s expert witness, and denying the appropriateness of punitive damages based on a gross negligence standard.

“There cannot be any question that there was a sign,” said Giannuzzi, naming three witnesses who testified to seeing blinking lights and/or a sign. Further, said Giannuzzi, there was no criticism of the signage by the Florida DOT, nor of the prior rolling roadblocks.

Giannuzzi argued that there is no difference between a rolling barricade and a rolling roadblock, or a rolling blockade.

But, said Giannuzzi, according to the plaintiff’s theory, there was no signage, there was no construction zone. So the truck driver should have stopped, just as if there had been any obstruction in the road, such as due to a fender bender, or slowed traffic due to road debris or a patrol car on the shoulder.

“This rolling roadblock did not change the traffic laws for [the truck driver],” said Giannuzzi. “You could have elephants crossing the road. It doesn’t matter what’s there. He was still required to stop.”

Alterman v. Zep Construction is being webcast live by CVN. 

Judge DeFuria instructed the jury in Alterman v. Zep before closing arguments, so they would know what to look for, and told them he would instruct them again afterwards. Judge DeFuria told the jury that if they found by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages were warranted, then the parties would provide additional evidence regarding the amount.

CVN is webcasting the trial live. 

Plaintiff attorney Mitchel Chusid began his closing argument by leaving the podium and pointing at the two defendants Zep Construction and Traffic Control Products. He reminded the jury that they had all said during voir dire that they would be willing to award “a boatload of money” if the defendant’s behavior was proved sufficiently egregious.

“The evidence is overwhelming in this case that what the two defendants did on that highway in October 2007 was despicable, and should never happen again.” Chusid argued that they established a rolling roadblock on the downside of a hill with inadequate signage, and that only rolling barricades were permitted, not rolling roadblocks.

“I don’t care who told who to move the signs,” said Chusid. “These two defendants had control over that highway…All they had to do was provide two variable message boards…Nothing. Zero. Not one warning sign was sent out.” All the defendants had to do, said Chusid, was to provide adequate signage, and then Tyler Brashear “wouldn’t be here today, he would be playing basketball with his dad, and doing things that fathers do with their sons.”

The plaintiff and both defendants rested their cases on Friday afternoon, and Judge DeFuria announced that the parties had agreed that Tyler Brashear’s past medical expenses were $46,250.26.  

Judge DeFuria then instructed the jury to return Tuesday morning, February 23rd, at 9:00am Eastern Time for closing arguments. Judge DeFuria predicted that closings would last 5-6 hours, and then deliberation could begin Tuesday afternoon.

CVN is providing live and on-demand coverage of Alterman v. Zep Construction. 

A tractor trailer jack-knifed into traffic at a road construction crew’s moving roadblock, which resulted in an 11-vehicle pile-up on I-75 in Florida.  The rolling roadblock was located on the blind side of a hill. Two people died as a result of the collision.  This wrongful death lawsuit involves James Brashear, who died in the crash, and his 11-year old son Tyler, who survived.

The plaintiff alleges that Zep failed to adequately warn drivers about the road block.  Zep responds that the road block was properly marked, and that the accident resulted instead from the truck driver’s negligence.

Judge Rick DeFuria presides over the case, Alterman v. Zep Construction, in Sarasota, Florida.

Lead plaintiff attorney Mitchel Chusid told the jury during opening statement that “the evidence in this case is going to show each and every one of you that not only were these defendants — this defendant and that defendant [pointing] — not only were they negligent, what they did on that highway on October 1, 2007, was outrageous, was in complete disregard for human safety and human life.”  

Mr. Chusid predicted that the evidence would show that other drivers on the road had to slam their brakes to avoid a collision with the rolling roadblock.  In addition, Zep’s designated worksite traffic supervisor allegedly had never read many of the required safety rules and guidelines.  Mr. Chusid said that the defendants saved $1,040 by failing to comply with their own traffic safety plan requirements to provide a warning vehicle, to display variable message signs warning of a pace car, and to restrict  traffic from entering the highway.

The plaintiff’s 11-year old son, seated in the passenger seat, survived the crash.  “There must have been an angel watching over this boy,” said Mr. Chusid, “because the only part of that car that remained kind of intact was where he was seated. Unfortunately, what that boy experienced in that car is the worst possible thing that any 11-year old boy, or any human being, could experience…his dad was conscious for a couple of seconds, five seconds, he looks at his son, before he dies, with his last gasp of breath, he says, I love you, and proceeds to bleed to death on his son’s lap.”  

Mr. Chusid predicted that the defense would blame the accident on the truck driver, because the driver was eating. However, according to Mr. Chusid, the truck driver vehemently denied eating, and the food he had with him was rice and beans.  A meticulous police search of the truck’s cab allegedly failed to reveal a fork or a spoon.  ”This is not a hamburger; this is not a sandwich — rice and beans,” said Mr. Chusid. “How do you eat rice and beans without a fork and a spoon?”  

Defense attorney Gregory Giannuzzi asserted that the truck driver’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident.  Defense counsel predicted that the evidence would show that the truck driver had plenty of warning, that the truck driver was speeding, that the truck driver was not wearing shoes, that other tractor trailers were able to stop in time, and that there were just 27 feet of skid marks before the point of the first collision.

According to Mr. Giannuzzi, the truck driver was also distracted at the time of the accident because he was eating. He could have put the food elsewhere, said Mr. Giannuzzi, but instead he placed the food next to him, because he most likely intended to eat it as he was making his trip.

The defense also suggested that the truck driver did see some warning signs, and yet failed to slow down.  According to Mr. Giannuzzi the evidence would show that the Florida Department of Transportation field personnel did not issue any complaints about signage prior to the accident.

CVN is offering live and on-demand coverage of Alterman v. Zep Construction.