Daniel Perez v. Yamaha Motor Corporation USA (West Palm Beach, FL)

On June 9, 2011, a Florida state court determined that Yamaha Motor Corporation USA was responsible for a 2005 WaveRunner accident near Currie Park that killed the plaintiff’s 14 year-old daughter Jaysell Perez and gravely injured then 15 year-old teenager, Samantha Archer. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $35 million. $19 million went to the parents of Jaysell Perez and $16 million went to 21-year old Samantha Archer, who was 15 at the time of the accident.

On May 5, 2011, Ivonne and Daniel Perez, parents of Jaysell Perez, walked to the Palm Beach County courtroom to begin Day 1 of their 6-week trial against Yamaha with millions of dollars at stake and the memory of their 14 year-old daughter, Jaysell, on their minds.

Attorney Robert Baker (Baker & Zimmerman) asked the jury to remember throughout the case that two subsidiaries of Yamaha of Japan, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA and Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation, “buried their heads in the sand like ostriches instead of listening to their engineers” warn them about design defects inherent in the product that later killed 14 year-old Jaysell Perez and injured then 15 year-old Samantha Archer. Robert Baker accused Yamaha Motor Corporation USA of failing to correct steering problems with the water scooter and failing to warn users of its foreseeable and known hazards.

Baker emphasized the years it took Yamaha to figure out how to make sure that its operators could steer its WaveRunner when the throttle was released (off-throttle steering). Jaysell Perez and Samantha Archer plowed into a boat after Samatha Perez took her hand off of the throttle to turn the water scooter.

Representing the defendants, Richard Mueller (Thompson Coburn), said that this case was about “two inexperienced children who were let loose illegally on the waterways during a holiday weekend.” He portrayed Samantha Archer as someone who was negligent in her use of the WaveRunner. According to Mr. Mueller, Samantha Archer failed to release the vehicle’s throttle and also failed to look in front of her while steering the water scooter to avoid the collision. He stated that the steering apparatus on the WaveRunner was not defective in its design, and therefore was not responsible for the death of Jaysell Perez or the injuries suffered by Samantha Archer.

David Kleinberg (Neufeld, Kleinberg & Pinkiert) and Eric Ansel (Ansel, Bunsic & Miller) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and Carl Pesce (Thompson Coburn) and Scott Sarason (Thompson Coburn) appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Over six weeks, extensive expert testimony from both sides was presented, along with the testimony from the corporate heads of Yamaha of Japan and its subsidiaries. Gavel-to-gavel coverage is available from Courtroom View Network. 

CVN webcast Daniel Perez v. Yahama Motor Corporation USA live. 

CVN webcast opening statements in Patricia Scheer v. Ford, a defective automobile seat case.

According to plaintiff attorney Thomas Christensen, of Christensen Law, Scheer’s 1999 Mercury Mountaineer was rear-ended while Scheer was stopped at a red light. The force of the rear-end collision allegedly collapsed Scheer’s seat, sending her backwards. Scheer was then suddenly thrust forward when Scheer’s vehicle struck the GMC Yukon in front of her.

Christensen asserted that when Ford was designing the Mercury Mountaineer, it used two seat designs: one that would withstand a moderate-speed rear-end collision, and one that would not. Ford chose for the Mountaineer the seat that would collapse, said Christensen, which resulted in Scheer’s severe injuries.

One of Scheer’s injuries was a cut to her leg, which became infected with an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Scheer required maggot therapy — the intentional introduction of maggots into the wound to clean out only the necrotic (dead) tissue.

Christensen said that Scheer’s medical bills exceeded $400K, and that the evidence would require him to request $10M in general damages at the end of trial.

Representing Ford, Snell Wilmer’s Jay Schuttert, said “There’s not much that Ford agrees with the plaintiff about.” According to Schuttert, the blame had to be assigned to the “careless driver,” Asa Funderburke, who struck Scheer’s vehicle.

According to Schuttert, Scheer’s seat did not collapse or break, but properly yielded to protect the occupant in the event of a rear-impact. If the seat had not yielded, said Schuttert, Scheer would have suffered even worse injuries.

Ford was not responsible, Scheer concluded, because the Mercury Mountaineer’s seat was safe, well-tested, exceeded every government standard (including FMVSS 207), and performed as intended in the crash.

Watch CVN’s live webcast of Scheer v. Ford.

After briefly deliberating today, the jury in CVN’s live webcast of Barkman v. Adams awarded $19,441 in damages to Laura Barkman, and $1,335,592 in damages to Randall Hobbs, including $800K for lost future wages and $382K for future pain and suffering. Hobbs’ brain was damaged as a result of a collision between the motorcycle he was riding and an SUV. Hobbs was not wearing a helmet.

The Barkman v. Adams trial webcast by CVN involved the damages resulting from a vehicle collision involving an SUV and a motorcycle, which ejected the motorcycle drivers into the street. The parties agreed prior to trial that the defendant SUV driver was 100% responsible for the accident. However, the parties did not agree as to the damages.

Both motorcycle passengers were injured, but one had fully recovered, whereas the other suffered permanent coup contrecoup frontal lobe brain injuries that caused a significant change in personality. The plaintiff argue that, because he lost his ability to sequence, organize, and plan, he would never again be a construction supervisor. He had also lost his sense of smell, and, said the plaintiff, would live with anguish, depression, and fear.

The plaintiff requested damages of over $3.5M

The defense argued that the injuries would have been much less severe if the plaintiffs had been wearing helmets. Further, said the defense, the plaintiff’s work life had not been shortened by ten years, and his ability to multi-task was not lost.

CVN webcast the Barkman v Adams trial live. 

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.