California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Jong Ja Jun (Female, 61 Years), 

Estate of Jin Ouk Burnham (Male, 15 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Rahul Ravipudi;
Panish Shea & Boyle LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jong Ja Jun, Estate of Jin Ouk Burnham ■ Deborah Chang;
Panish Shea & Boyle LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jong Ja Jun, Estate of Jin Ouk Burnham ■ Thomas A. Schultz;
Panish Shea & Boyle LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jong Ja Jun, Estate of Jin Ouk Burnham ■ Matthew J. Stumpf;
Panish Shea & Boyle LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Jong Ja Jun, Estate of Jin Ouk Burnham

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Edward Stevens; Traffic; Olympia,
WA called by:
Rahul Ravipudi, Deborah Chang, Thomas A. Schultz, Matthew J. Stumpf ■ Augustine Zemba; Buses; San Diego,
CA called by:
Rahul Ravipudi, Deborah Chang, Thomas A. Schultz, Matthew J. Stumpf

Defendant(s):

Imelda Hughes, 

City of Fontana, 

State of California, 

People of the State of California, 

Chaffey Joint Union High School District

Defense Attorney(s):

Christopher M. Sheedy;
Calendo Puckett Sheedy, LLP;
Glendale,
CA,
for
Imelda Hughes ■ Stephen M. Harber;
McCune & Harber, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Chaffey Joint Union High School District ■ None reported;

Los Angeles,
CA,
for
City of Fontana, State of California, People of the State of California

Defendant Expert(s):

David Roseman;
Traffic;
Long Beach,
CA called by:
Stephen M. Harber

On the morning of Dec. 6, 2010, plaintiff’s decedent Jin Ouk Burnham, 15, a sophomore high school student, was attempting to cross Duncan Canyon Road (with east-west traffic) at the intersection with Serrano Avenue (with north-south traffic), in Fontana. He was heading toward a bus stop, which was on a bus route established by the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. (The bus stop was the only one near Jin’s home.) While crossing Duncan Canyon Road in an unmarked crosswalk at the intersection, Jin was struck by a vehicle operated by Imelda Hughes. Jin suffered catastrophic injuries and died 15 days later. Jin’s biological aunt and adoptive mother, plaintiff, Jong Ja Jun, sued Hughes, the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, the city of Fontana, the state of California, and the people of the state of California. The state and the people of the state were ultimately dismissed from the case before trial commenced. The city of Fontana was also dismissed on summary judgment and agreed to settle the matter with Jun. Thus, the matter continued against Hughes and the school district. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in the year before Jin’s death, the school district had bus stops on either side of Duncan Canyon Road so that children did not have to cross the uncontrolled, five-lane highway in order to get to a school bus stop. However, at the start of the 2010 school year, the school district removed the bus stop at the south corner of Duncan Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. Counsel contended that as a result, Jin and others were required to cross Duncan Canyon Road, which had traffic that traveled at freeway speeds averaging 56 mph with a top speed of 71 mph, to get to the bus stop on the northeast corner. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the bus stop change was illegal, in violation of title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 1238(b)(3), and consequently constituted a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiff’s school bus transportation expert testified about all of the steps that are taken to ensure that bus stops are designated in a safe and legal manner. According to the expert, those steps include identifying where all the students live and the paths those students would have to take in order to get to a potential bus stop. Other steps included personally looking at the proposed designated location and evaluating it for safety. The expert explained that after those steps, the school district should speak with local government, the city, law enforcement, etc., to see if there are any concerns about the area, the roadways, or other issues that would make them reconsider the designation. Additionally, the expert explained that the school district needs to be aware of all state and local laws/regulations to ensure compliance before assigning students to proposed stops. Once all of that is done, the proposal is submitted to the school district’s superintendent for consideration, review and approval, as required under 13 C.C.R. § 1238(a). However, the plaintiff’s school bus transportation expert opined that none of those steps were done in the case of assigning the bus stop at the south corner of Duncan Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. Throughout the pendency of the litigation prior to trial, the school district contended that it routinely discards all of its bus stop designation materials at year-end and that it, therefore, could not produce any relevant documents during discovery. However, through its employees, the school district denied every single one of the plaintiff’s allegations, claiming that it never removed any bus stops, that its bus stops were in effect for years with no prior incidents, and that the bus stop at issue was not in violation of 13 C.C.R. § 1238(b)(3) because the bus did not stop on a multi-lane highway, but stopped further up the road, at a cross street that had traffic controls. In addition, the school district’s employees claimed that there was a stop in effect closer to Jin’s home, on the south side of Duncan Canyon, so that Jin did not need to cross Duncan Canyon to get to a bus stop. Finally, the school district contended that the driver, Hughes, and Jin were the only negligent parties and responsible for Jin’s death. Hughes testified that while she understood that Jin was walking legally in an unmarked crosswalk for at least seven seconds (27 feet) before she hit him, she never saw him and never took efforts to avoid him. However, she contended that the intersection was unsafe and that the conditions and configuration of the street prevented her from properly seeing a student crossing. Hughes further contended that she had no notice of any school crossing, including signage, and that she never saw students crossing the road, as the bus stop was only in existence for four months prior to the accident and that in prior years, there was no need for students to cross the subject road. In addition, counsel for Hughes and the plaintiff argued that, but for the dangerous condition created by the school district, Jin and Hughes would have never been on the roadway at the same time. According to plaintiff’s counsel, when the school district did not produce any documents during discovery, plaintiff’s counsel reached out to members of the community and citizens who were outraged and concerned following Jin’s injuries — before he died — and had written correspondences with the school district requesting that it cure the dangerous condition and reinstate the south side bus stop. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that all of those correspondences were collected, and the school district’s defense was under scrutiny by the parties and, at the start of trial, by the court. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the newly acquired evidence supported the plaintiff’s contentions that the school bus stop that the school district claimed that Jin could have used was not designated until after his death and that the school district had hid this fact. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel brought a pre-trial motion for sanctions. The court found the absence of evidence questionable and ordered the school district to produce witnesses for an investigative hearing and testimony. However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, during that inquisition, it was clear that thousands of pages of documents were withheld. The following day, the school district produced some of those documents, which included emails between risk management at the school district and its employees that confirmed, according to plaintiff’s counsel, that the school district knew of its role in the tragedy and that every single defense it raised throughout the four years of litigation were false. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the school district did hide all evidence that it dangerously designated bus stops in violation of 13 C.C.R. § 1238 in the hopes of avoiding responsibility and liability. The court then levied issue sanctions finding that the school district created a dangerous condition of public property that was a cause of Jin’s death. However, the school district was still able to, and did, argue that Hughes and Jin were negligent in causing Jin’s death.

Jin suffered significant trauma to his head and body, including a severely fractured jaw, significant brain swelling, and damage to his spleen, requiring its removal, among other injuries. He ultimately died 15 days later, on Dec. 21, 2010, as a result of his catastrophic injuries. Jin was 15 years old. Jun, Jin’s biological aunt, legally adopted Jin in August 2009, a little more than one year before he died. Jun and Jin, her only child, lived with Jun’s fiancé, James Lee, whom Jin referred to as his uncle. Thus, Jun sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of her only child. The school district’s counsel disputed the value of the loss of the relationship between Jin and his adoptive mother, arguing that the jury should award Jun only $1.5 million. The school district’s counsel further suggested that the jury find Hughes 50 percent at fault and to use its discretion in apportioning the remaining fault between Jin and the school district.

The jury found the school district 100 percent at fault for creating and maintaining a dangerous condition of public property that caused Jin’s death. It accordingly apportioned no liability to Hughes or Jin. The jury determined that Jun’s damages totaled $20.5 million.

Jong Ja Jun: $4,500,000 Wrongful Death: past non-economic damages; $16,000,000 Wrongful Death: future non-economic damages

Judge:

Brian S. McCarville

Trial Length:

23
 days

Trial Deliberations:

4
 hours

Jury Vote:

11-1 as to liability; 12-0 as to damages

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and Hughes’ counsel. The school district’s counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls and counsel for the remaining defendants were not asked to contribute.