If you have been involved on a serious or catastrophic accident, ASN can refer you to a serious injury litigation attorney or law firm in your area. We can provide you with verdicts and settlement reports like the one listed below:

Click here to get a report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious Injury Cases include:

- Mass Disasters
- Catastrophes
- Auto Accidents
- Motorcycle Accidents
- Birth Defects
- Cerebral Palsy
- Medical Mistakes
- Defective Products
- Slip & Fall
- Paralysis
- Truck Accidents
- Bicycle Accidents
- Airline Accidents
- Train Accidents
- Construction Accidents
- Toxic Chemical Exposure
- Lead Paint Poisoning
- Dog Bites
- Burns / Scars
- Bad Faith Claims Against - Lack of Safety in Public Places
- Nursing Home Abuse / Neglect
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Brain Damage / Cerebral Palsy
- Injured Children
- Insurance Companies
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Broken Bones
- Wrongful Death
- Work Injuries

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PRODUCTS LIABILITY/GYMNASTICS MAT

COUNTY: Los Angeles

STATE: CA

VERDICT: $14,750,000 plus prejudgment interest per CCP 998.

ATTORNEYS Pltf: Attorney Search Network: Serious & Catastrophic Injuries Lawyer.

Deft: Shield & Smith Law Offices by John B. Loomis and Steven J. Freeburg (LA).

DEMAND: $3,999,999.99 (CCP 998) on 1-17-83 (this demand not to Shield & Smith, but to prior law firm); $8,000,000 5-22-85 at Trial.

OFFER: $500,000 (from Shield & Smith) w/indication of substantially more in May 1985, refused; Judge Tenner retained for settlement.

SPECIALS: $2,145,000 MED (stipulated to); $560,000-$1,000,000 (approx) LE; deft's expert, Brinton testified present LE value of $230,000-$400,000.

FACTS: Incident occurred on 4-29-80 to pltf (age 21-gymnast instructor) employed part-time at a private club in Northridge (Le Club Gymnastics) earning approx $10,000 per year, $4.00 per hour and also employed in several part-time jobs related to construction. Pltf was using an HJ5-18 mat, attempting a 1 1/2 rollout off of a mini trampoline (GTX) when his head pocketed into the mat while his body continued moving forward. One of pltf's hands went into mat deeper than the other. Alleged the mat was too soft and was designed as a high jump pit and sold as gymnastics mat. The mat was 5' 6" by 13' 3" w/18" of padding. The mat had been modified for use as a gymnastics mat by removal of 6" of foam thickness and the addition of a 12-inch lattice base. Further alleged the deft had not lab tested the mat for gymnastics use and failed to warn.

INJURIES: Ventilator dependent quadriplegia at C2 w/full-time nursing care.

DEFENSE: Contended product was not defective under theory of strict liability or negligent design; did not negligently fail to warn. Accident caused by pltf's own negligence and state of health. Pltf was suffering from severe cold and had taken 2 antihistamines; Pltf also had some residuals relating to accident in 1979. There was ample evidence mat had been tested by gymnastics experts; several national champions had used same type of mat, Mike Jacki being one. Pltf's own testimony: He had performed the same skill on same mat & trampoline 400-500 times before without incident.

Special Damages
(These questions submitted by deft's Atty. Pltf's Atty submitted list, but was too detailed-Court refused it.)

1. Defective mfg & design (GTX Mini Trampoline)? 11-1 Yes

2. Did defect exist when (GTX Mini Trampoline) left A.M.F., Inc? 11-1 Yes

3. Defect proximate cause of injury and damage? 11-1 No

4. N/A

5. Defect in mfg & design (HJ5-18 Mat), mfgd & sold by deft? 11-1 Yes

6. Did defect exist in HJ5-18 Mat when it left deft? 11-1 Yes

7. Was said HJ5-18 Mat proximate cause of injury and damage? 10-2 Yes

8. Did pltf's injuries & damages result from use of mat that was reasonably foreseeable to or intended by A.M.F., Inc? 11-1 Yes

9. Deft negligent? 11-1 Yes

10. Was negligence of deft proximate cause of injuries & damages? 10-2 Yes

11. Was there contributory negligence on part of pltf? 10-2 No

12. N/A

13. Was there neg on part of pltf's employer or agent, or employee's other than pltf? 11-1 Yes

14. Did Neg of pltf's employer or agent or employee other than pltf contribute to proximate cause of pltf's injury? 10-2 Yes

15. Without taking into consideration reduction of negligence to pltf if any, or the amount of damages suffered by pltf, a proximate cause of which was the accident in question? $14,750,000 9-3.

16. Assuming 100% represents combined total of:

(a) Pltf of

(b) pltf's employer or agent or employer other than Deft &

(c) of the deft.

What portion of any such combined faults attributable to following:

(a) Pltf

(b) pltf's employer? Pltf: 0%; Employer as agent or employee: 4%; deft: 96% 11-1

Editor's Note: In this six-month trial, 4 months were spent on pltf's case while 1 1/2 months spent on deft's case w/balance of time (1 month) on Jury selection. Approx 300 Jurors interviewed before Panel selected due to anticipated length of Trial.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact us.

Call us or click here to get a referral to an ASN's panel lawyer.

Go back to Top