California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Arlene Ludwig (Female, 70 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Joseph D. Davis;
Law Offices of Joseph D. Davis;
Pasadena,
CA,
for
Arlene Ludwig

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Eli Baron;
M.D.;
Neurosurgery;
Los Angeles,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis ■ Brad Avrit;
P.E.;
Safety;
Marina del Rey,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis ■ Joel Rosen;
M.D.;
Physical Medicine;
Northridge,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis ■ Sara Guentz;
R.N.;
Life Care Planning;
Long Beach,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis ■ David Fractor;
Ph.D.;
Economics;
Pasadena,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis ■ Steven Drell;
M.D.;
Internal Medicine;
Sherman Oaks,
CA called by
Joseph D. Davis

Defendant(s):

Jairo Gamba, 

Hacienda Paraiso, 

Nancy Patricia Gamba

Defense Attorney(s):

Timothy B. Fitzhugh;
Veatch Carlson, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jairo Gamba, Hacienda Paraiso, Nancy Patricia Gamba ■ Bruce L. Schechter;
Veatch Carlson, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jairo Gamba, Hacienda Paraiso, Nancy Patricia Gamba

Defendant Expert(s):

John Tyson;
Engineering;
Encino,
CA called by
Timothy B. Fitzhugh, Bruce L. Schechter

Insurer(s):

Farmers Insurance Group of Cos. for Hacienda Paraiso dba D’Cache Restaurant

On July 6, 2011, at approximately 2:45 p.m., plaintiff Arlene Ludwig, 70, a publicist for Walt Disney Co., exited D’Cache Restaurant, located on Riverside Drive in Toluca Lake, and was walking toward her car, when she stopped and returned to the restaurant to use the bathroom. While walking to the bathroom, Ludwig tripped and fell over a 6-inch step inside the restaurant. She injured her spine, resulting partial quadriparesis. Ludwig sued the operator of D’Cache Restaurant, Hacienda Paraiso; and the owners of Hacienda Paraiso, Jairo Gamba and Nancy Gamba. Ludwig alleged the defendants were negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist, in violation of the California Building Code and common law. Jairo and Nancy Gamba were ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter proceeded to a bench trial after the parties waived their rights to a jury trial. Ludwig contended that she tripped over a 6-inch step/elevation change inside the restaurant. The 83-year-old building was converted from a residential home into a restaurant in 2006, but the owners kept intact a sunken living room when it was converted into the main dining room. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that a building code violation existed, in that the subject step/elevation change was a path of egress travel and, as such, needed to include a ramp and 1-foot-candle of appropriate lighting. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that the area of the step lacked both the requirements of a ramp and a 1-foot-candle of appropriate lighting. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that the subject step/elevation change was a dangerous condition that was not permitted in any commercial building space and that the failure to remedy this condition constituted common law negligence. Defense counsel argued that the subject step/elevation change was not a path of egress travel and that it did not require a ramp. Counsel contended that a handrail existed at the portion of the elevation change adjacent to the front doorway and that a sign cautioning patrons to watch their step was on a table adjacent to the doorway. Defense counsel also argued that the lighting in the area was adequate and that a light measurement taken by the plaintiff’s safety expert did not prove any violation. Specifically, counsel contended that the subject step/elevation change was marked with an LED rope light, floor-mounted spotlight, and color-contrast tape. Thus, defense counsel argued that the subject step/elevation change was not a dangerous condition. In addition, defense counsel contended that Ludwig was a patron prior to the incident and was warned by a waitress, as well as by a waiter, to watch her step on the date of loss. Both the waitress and an owner of the restaurant testified that there were no prior trip-and-fall incidents in the subject area. However, the waitress did testify in her deposition that there were prior incidents in another area.

Ludwig was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where she was diagnosed with central cord syndrome, an acute cervical spinal cord injury, resulting in partial quadriparesis. She subsequently underwent a cervical fusion and hemilaminectomy one week later. Ludwig remained hospitalized for one month, then transferred to a skilled nursing center for one month, and then transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation center for three months. Ludwig claimed that she is severely limited in her use of her upper and lower extremities and that she now uses a walker to ambulate. She has been receiving ongoing in-home rehabilitation with a caregiver and she claimed she will require 24-hour attendant care for the remainder of her life. Ludwig claimed that she never returned to work following the incident and that her condition has impinged on all activities and hobbies, including playing tennis. Thus, Ludwig sought recovery of $1,262,376.11 in past medical costs (on lien), and $3,924,086 in future care costs at a life expectancy of 87.5 years or $5,235,269 in future care costs at a life expectancy of 92.5 years. She also sought recovery of $761,209 in lost earnings at a projected work life of up to age 77 or $988,953 in lost earnings at a projected work life of up to age 80. Including her claim seeking damages for her pain and suffering, Ludwig sought recovery of roughly $20 million in total damages. Ludwig’s worker’s compensation insurance carrier, Liberty Insurance Corp., intervened in the matter, but later dismissed its action. Defense counsel argued that Ludwig did not require 24-hour attendant care, but, rather, part-time attendant care.

Judge Robert O’Brien determined that Hacienda Paraiso was 60 percent at fault and that Ludwig was 40 percent at fault. He also determined that Ludwig’s damages totaled $16,552,588.11. After a comparative liability offset, Ludwig should recover $9,931,552.87.

Arlene Ludwig: $2,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering; $8,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering; $5,563,635 Personal Injury: Medical Costs; $998,953 Personal Injury: Lost Earnings

Actual Award:

$9,931,552.87

Judge:

Robert H. O’Brien

Demand:

$1,999,999 (C.C.P. § 998)

Offer:

$900,001 (C.C.P. § 998)

Trial Length:

15
 days

Post Trial:

Ludwig is seeking recovery of approximately $1.9 million in prejudgment interest, as well as $400,000 in attorney costs. Defense counsel will be filing a motion to tax costs and a motion for new trial.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s and defense counsel.