California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Antonio Pureco (Male, 38 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

John C. Carpenter;
Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP;
Beverly Hills,
CA,
for
Antonio Pureco ■ Andrew Zeytuntsyan;
Law Offices of Andrew Zeytuntsyan, PC;
North Hollywood,
CA,
for
Antonio Pureco ■ Brian Kim;
Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP;
Beverly Hills,
CA,
for
Antonio Pureco

Plaintiff Expert(s):

F. Rudnick; M.D.; Psychiatry; Santa Monica,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ H. Fisk; M.D.; Neurology; Los Angeles,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ James Mills; M.A.; Economics; Los Altos,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ Arthur Kreitenberg; M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; Los Angeles,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ Khyber Zaffarkhan; D.O.; Life Care Planning; Newport Beach,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ Marcel Ponton; Ph.D.; Neuropsychology; Pasadena,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan ■ Timothy Reust; P.E.; Accident Reconstruction; Newhall,
CA called by:
John C. Carpenter, Andrew Zeytuntsyan

Defendant(s):

Felipe Carrillo, 

American Transport, 

David De La Torre Carrillo

Defense Attorney(s):

James T. Biesty;
Biesty, Garretty & Wagner;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Felipe Carrillo, American Transport, David De La Torre Carrillo ■ Sean Garretty;
Biesty, Garretty & Wagner;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Felipe Carrillo, American Transport, David De La Torre Carrillo

Defendant Expert(s):

Gene Bruno;
Life Care Planning;
Encino,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ Barry Ludwig;
Neurology;
Los Angeles,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ Brian Jacks;
Psychiatry;
Beverly Hills,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ David King;
Accident Reconstruction;
Laguna Hills,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ Arnold Purisch;
Neuropsychology;
Laguna Hills,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ Jennie McNulty;
Economics;
Los Angeles,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty ■ Robert Klapper;
Orthopedic Surgery;
Los Angeles,
CA called by:
James T. Biesty, Sean Garretty

Insurer(s):

Allstate Insurance Co. for David De La Torre Carrillo and Felipe Carrillo

On Feb. 25, 2014, plaintiff Antonio Pureco, 38, a gardener, was driving home when he attempted to make a U-turn to park his vehicle in front of his apartment building in La Puente. The street was narrow, so in order to make a U-turn, Pureco first pulled over to the curb of another apartment building so that he could get enough room to complete the U-turn. However, as Pureco began the U-turn, his driver’s side door was struck by a vehicle operated by David De La Torre Carrillo, 18, who was originally traveling behind him. The impact of the collision was severe, rendering Pureco unconscious at the scene. He subsequently had to be removed from the vehicle by the Jaws of Life, and he allegedly sustained injuries to his head and hip. Carrillo was cited for excessive speed and Pureco was cited for an unsafe U-turn. Pureco sued David De La Torre Carrillo and the believed owner of the vehicle, Felipe Carrillo, De La Torre Carrillo’s father. Pureco alleged that De La Torre Carrillo was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Carrillo was vicariously liable for his son’s actions. American Transport was later added to the case as a defendant, but it was ultimately determined to not be involved in the matter and let out of the case. Pureco alleged that he pulled over to the right so that he could get enough room to complete a U-turn, but that as he was in the process of making the turn, he was struck by De La Torre Carrillo. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert opined that De La Torre Carrillo was traveling between 53 and 58 mph on a residential street with a speed limit of 35 mph before attempting to brake for Pureco’s turning vehicle. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that De La Torre Carrillo was negligent for traveling at an excessive speed and failing to keep a proper lookout. Counsel further argued that but for the unsafe speed of De La Torre Carrillo, the collision would not have occurred. De La Torre Carrillo claimed that he was traveling behind Pureco when he saw Pureco put on his right-turn indicator. He alleged that as a result, he attempted to pass Pureco on his left, but that instead of Pureco making the right turn into the apartment complex, as indicated, Pureco made a sudden U-turn in front of him. Thus, De La Torre Carrillo testified that he did not have enough time to apply his brakes and avoid colliding with the driver’s side door of Pureco’s vehicle. Defense counsel noted that the impact speed was determined to be 46.4 mph, and that an independent witness confirmed that he heard De La Torre Carrillo’s vehicle braking before impact. Defense counsel further contended that Pureco has no memory of the incident and could not contradict De La Torre Carrillo’s version of the wreck. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the collision would have occurred even if De La Torre Carrillo had been traveling at 35 mph, but that the severity of the impact would have been considerably less and the impact would have been at the rear fender on Pureco’s vehicle. Thus, defense counsel argued that Pureco’s unsafe U-turn contributed to the collision.

During the collision, Pureco’s left femur was pushed through his left acetabulum. He also suffered a left diaphragm injury and a severe traumatic brain injury with bleeding and a shearing injury, resulting in dead gray matter. Specifically, he sustained diffuse axonal injuries, bifrontal subdural contusions, and an injury to the corpus callosum of his brain. Pureco was subsequently rendered unconscious at the scene and he had to be removed from his vehicle with the Jaws of Life. He was then transported to Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, in Los Angeles, where he remained unconscious for at least two weeks. He also suffered from one month of post-concussive amnesia. Pureco’s hip injury was not operated on due to his grave condition, but he underwent therapy for his brain injury at Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, in Downey. Pureco made a miraculous recovery from his TBI, but he will allegedly continue to have cognitive issues for the rest of his life. He subsequently never went back to work. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Pureco will require a total hip replacement, but ultimately conceded, after testimony from the defense’s orthopedic expert, that Pureco will probably require one revision of the hip replacement. All experts agreed that Pureco suffers from a severe cognitive disorder, rendering him permanently disabled. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Pureco requires 24/7 attendant care and that Pureco will suffer dementia by age 60 and a reduced life expectancy by seven years. Pureco waived all past medical expenses, but sought recovery of approximately $12 million (present value) for his future medical treatment. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel challenged the necessity for brand-name medications, and asserted that Pureco currently only needed eight hours of daily attendant care. Counsel also argued that Pureco could go into assisted living when he demented, instead of 24-hour attendant care at home. Thus, the defense’s expert economist estimated the present value of all of Pureco’s future care to be approximately $3.8 million.

The jury apportioned 50 percent fault to Pureco and 50 percent fault to De La Torre Carrillo. It also determined that Pureco’s damages totaled $10 million. (Felipe Carrillo allegedly only had statutory liability limit of $15,000.) After apportionment, Pureco’s recovery should total $5 million.

Antonio Pureco: $1,000,000 Personal Injury: past pain and suffering; $5,000,000 Personal Injury: future pain and suffering ($100,000 per year); $4,000,000 Personal Injury: future medical costs (life care plan)

Actual Award:

$5,000,000

Judge:

David S. Cunningham, III

Demand:

$30,000,000

Offer:

$100,000

Trial Length:

9
 days

Trial Deliberations:

1
 days

Jury Vote:

12-0 as to liability and comparative fault; 9-3 as to damages

Jury Composition:

9 male/ 3 female

Post Trial:

Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that the defendants’ insurance policy was open for failure to accept a timely policy limit demand. Defense counsel denied that the policy was open.

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