California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

John Mullin Sr. (Male, 49 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Robert E. Barnett;
Barnett & Bennett Law Firm;
Fairfield,
CA,
for
John Mullin Sr. ■ Benjamin W. Scott;
Barnett & Bennett Law Firm;
Fairfield,
CA,
for
John Mullin Sr.

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Gary Martinovsky;
M.D.;
Pain Management;
San Francisco,
CA called by
Robert E. Barnett, Benjamin W. Scott ■ Carol Hyland;
M.A.;
Vocational Rehabilitation;
Lafayette,
CA called by
Robert E. Barnett, Benjamin W. Scott ■ David Green;
Ph.D.;
Psychology/Counseling;
Fairfield,
CA called by
Robert E. Barnett, Benjamin W. Scott ■ Gerald Fulghum;
C.S.P.;
Safety;
Sacramento,
CA called by
Robert E. Barnett, Benjamin W. Scott ■ Richard Palfin;
Ph.D.;
Economics;
Sunnyville,
CA called by
Robert E. Barnett, Benjamin W. Scott

Defendant(s):

Jelly Belly Candy Co.

Defense Attorney(s):

Christopher A. Appleton;
Law Offices of Helen Santana;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
Jelly Belly Candy Co.

Defendant Expert(s):

Peter Cassini;
Neurology;
Palo Alto,
CA called by
Christopher A. Appleton ■ Sharon Kawai;
Physical Medicine;
Fullerton,
CA called by
Christopher A. Appleton ■ Stephen Andrew;
Mechanical;
Menlo Park,
CA called by
Christopher A. Appleton ■ William Hooker;
Neuropsychology;
San Francisco,
CA called by
Christopher A. Appleton ■ Kendrick Lee;
Hand Surgery;
Oakland,
CA called by
Christopher A. Appleton

Insurer(s):

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

On the morning of June 4, 2009, plaintiff John Mullin, 49, a mechanic for an industrial parts company, went to the Jelly Belly factory in Fairfield before the production line was to start. Mullin was at the factory to obtain a part number listed on the label of a gearbox located on the bottom of a multiple-story sugar silo. After he got under the silo and found the label, he crouched down and reached his right hand to wipe off the sugar dust that covered the label. Next to the label, there was a sprocket that turned a metal chain that controlled the flow of sugar. Although the chain was guarded on the outside, Mullin was unaware that the chain was unguarded on the side near the label. As a result, when Mullin’s fingers came near the machine, it activated and caused the chain to entrap the third and fourth fingers of Mullin’s right hand. He subsequently suffered degloving amputations of the third and fourth fingers on his right hand. Mullin sued Jelly Belly Candy Co. He alleged that the company was negligent for failing to warn him about the machine’s unguarded chain and for violating Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that OSHA required a complete guard around the chain-and-sprocket mechanism within the sugar silo, but that Jelly Belly failed to have such a guard in place. Counsel also contended that Jelly Belly was negligent for failing to warn of the machine starting automatically and about the exposed pinch point. Defense counsel argued that its failure to properly guard the chain and sprocket was not a substantial factor in causing Mullin’s injury and that Mullin was negligent for failing to request that the equipment be turned off. Counsel contended that a Jelly Belly employee told Mullin that the machine was on and warned him not to touch anything. In addition, counsel contended that Mullin’s employer, Bearing Engineering, was negligent for failing to train its employees on the proper lockout/tagout procedures.

Mullin suffered degloving amputations of the third and fourth fingers on his right hand. He subsequently developed complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition. Mullin has undergone several unsuccessful procedures to attempt to alleviate the pain, including a thoracic sympathectomy, various nerve blocks, and revision amputations. Mullin has continued to work and is now a machine parts salesman. However, he claimed he now has reduced work hours and reduced commissions. Thus, Mullin sought recovery of future medical costs, past and future loss of household services, and past and future loss of earnings. (Past medical costs were paid by workers’ compensation.) Mullin also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. The workers’ compensation company, Endurance Workers’ Compensation Insurance Co., appeared as an intervening plaintiff.

The jury determined that Jelly Belly was 73 percent liable for the accident and that Mullin was 27 percent liable. It also determined that Mullin’s employer, Bearing Engineering, was negligent for its inadequate training, but that the employer’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Mullin’s injury. The jury further determined that Mullin’s damages totaled $4,578,915. It also awarded the workers’ compensation company, Endurance, an additional $184,768.26. After apportionment, Mullin’s recovery was reduced to $3,342,607.90.

John Mullin Sr.: $517,518 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost; $138,397 Personal Injury: Past Lost Earnings Capability; $1,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Lost Earnings Capability; $85,000 Personal Injury: Past Loss Of Services; $388,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Services; $450,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering; $2,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering

Actual Award:

$3,271,607.90

Judge:

Harry S. Kinnicutt

Demand:

$4 million

Offer:

$300,000/$100,000

Trial Length:

4
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

3
 days

Post Trial:

After the verdict, the parties agreed to reduce the judgment by $71,000 in order to avoid a double recovery for past wage loss and workers’ compensation indemnity benefits, thus reducing the judgment to $3,271,607.90. Defense counsel moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and remittitur. The motions were all denied.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.