On May 12, 2002, June Gutierrez was driving her vehicle southbound on Newport Boulevard. Leilani Gutierrez, her four-year-old daughter, was a passenger in this vehicle, and she was properly secured in... her car seat. The Gutierrez vehicle entered the intersection with Wilson Street on a green light. While in this intersection, the Gutierrez vehicle was struck on the right passenger side by a vehicle driven by Michael Leinert, who was traveling east on Wilson and entered the intersection against a red light in contravention of California Vehicle Code § 21453(a).
Mr. Leinert's vehicle hit the right side of the Gutierrez vehicle causing it to lose control. The Gutierrez vehicle left the roadway and struck a utility pole on the passenger side, and then fell onto the driver's side. Both vehicles were extensively damaged.
At the time of this collision, Mr. Leinert was acting within the course and scope of his employment by the United States and the Department of Defense as a computer specialist.
Leilani Gutierrez, now nine years old, is a ventilator-dependant quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down. Her paralysis is at the C2 level. Since the incident, Leilani Gutierrez has endured 25 surgeries and medical procedures, and spent approximately 250 days in the hospital. June Gutierrez developed a severe case of Post-Traumatic Disorder (PTSD) as a result of seeing her daughter injured.
Personal injury
Gutierrez v. United States of America
Sep 07, 2007
OUTCOME: $55,184,288 verdict for plaintiffs
On May 12, 2002, June Gutierrez was driving her vehicle southbound on Newport Boulevard. Leilani Gutierrez, her four-year-old daughter, was a passenger in this vehicle, and she was properly secured in ...her car seat. The Gutierrez vehicle entered the intersection with Wilson Street on a green light. While in this intersection, the Gutierrez vehicle was struck on the right passenger side by a vehicle driven by Michael Leinert, who was traveling east on Wilson and entered the intersection against a red light in contravention of California Vehicle Code § 21453(a).
Mr. Leinert's vehicle hit the right side of the Gutierrez vehicle causing it to lose control. The Gutierrez vehicle left the roadway and struck a utility pole on the passenger side, and then fell onto the driver's side. Both vehicles were extensively damaged.
At the time of this collision, Mr. Leinert was acting within the course and scope of his employment by the United States and the Department of Defense as a computer specialist.
Leilani Gutierrez, now nine years old, is a ventilator-dependant quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down. Her paralysis is at the C2 level. Since the incident, Leilani Gutierrez has endured 25 surgeries and medical procedures, and spent approximately 250 days in the hospital. June Gutierrez developed a severe case of Post-Traumatic Disorder (PTSD) as a result of seeing her daughter injured.
Personal injury
Small v. County of Orange
Feb 01, 1994
OUTCOME: Total jury verdict of $2,093,638
Laura Small, during a family outing in Orange County Wilderness Park, was mauled by a mountain lion. Plaintiff argued at trial that the Defendant, County of Orange, failed to warn the public of the kno...wn risk to human safety posed by mountain lions. The County should have done so since it knew mountain lions regularly frequented the improved public park. Plaintiff pointed to the following evidence of such knowledge: multiple lion sightings (including two near attacks), discussion by the County regarding other “unusual" lion behavior, and prior County discussions regarding their need to take public safety protective measures.
Yet no warnings were given, even after a park official had been instructed to do so by a California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Biologist. In fact, the park continued to issue information stating that the “most dangerous form of wildlife" in the park was poison oak and that the mountain lion was “shy, secretive, with a healthy aversion to human beings." Plaintiffs relied on these affirmative representations of safety in choosing to bring their young child to this public park, to their detriment.
At trial Plaintiff’s experts testified that mountain lions are known to attack human beings, especially children (and common sense furthermore dictates that they are dangerous animals). The park should have warned the public of the danger of lions present in the park, at least. Other protective measures would have been to close portions of the park where lions are known to commonly frequent, close portions of the trails to minors, or close the park entirely until the danger was alleviated. With numerous lion sightings and “unusual" lion behavior, including two “near attacks," the park should have taken measures to protect the public. Furthermore, the information being given to the public clearly misrepresented the park as a safe place to bring your children, which it was not.
The Defendant, County of Orange contended that they cannot be held liable for the acts of a wild animal on unimproved public property. They further argued that the park officials had no way of knowing that mountains lions were dangerous to human beings, therefore the County’s failure to warn was not negligent. There had never been an attack on humans by a mountain lion in Southern California and the last attack in California was in 1907.
At trial Defense experts testified the County was immune from liability for injury resulting from a natural condition of unimproved public property. The County further argued park officials could not have been aware of the danger posed by mountain lions in the park because there had been no documented mountain lion attacks on human beings ever in Southern California (despite that lion attacks in other States and Canada are well documented, and despite that there have been numerous “near attacks" even in Southern California). Thus, the county argued it had no duty to warn.
