The Lawsuit
A small private hospital in a rural town decided to build a new wing on the back of their existing building. A local architect designed the new wing, but never visited the site. Access to the construction site was gained by using the hospital's regular entrance, a two-lane dirt road that made a t-intersection at a flat four-lane highway with no obstructed view for over 400 yards. A retired resident cardiologist's 60-year old wife had volunteered every Wednesday afternoon at the hospital for more than four years, always entering and exiting using the regular entrance. Construction was suspended during the winter, leaving the site unattended and, therefore, leaving no evidence of the work in the back of the hospital.
One sunny, dry winter afternoon, the wife drove away from the hospital as usual, and without slowing or stopping turned left onto the four-lane highway into the path of an oncoming truck and was killed. Suit was filed by the surviving family against the owner of the hospital and all of the involved parties in the construction, alleging that they should have put a stop sign at the front highway entrance and left it there even when they were off-site. There was no stop sign at the end of the dirt road before the construction, nor was it required. The law of the jurisdiction was such that if the decedent was found 50% or more at fault herself, then the plaintiffs would recover zero.
The Arguments
Clearly, none of the construction entities had anything to do with the signage at the intersection. Obviously, no one had liability for the failure of the decedent to observe the most basic rules of the road. However, the widow was loved and respected. By six months before the trial, after five years of unsuccessful motions to dismiss, hearings and discovery, the codefendants and/or their insurance carriers had spent in excess of $130,000 EACH. In the final month of litigation, the grandchildren cried at depositions, and countless townspeople professed the great loss felt by the dear grandmother's passing. The philanthropic family of the decedent publicized that anything recovered in the litigation would fund another new wing named after the deceased. The co-defendants began to settle our separately one by one, for amounts varying from $50,000 to $100,000 to avoid further expense and trial. After jury selection we recommended the architect consent to settle for the $30,000 cost of trial. Only the general contractor stubbornly remained in the case.
The Result
At the end of an emotional four-week trial, the jury rendered a verdict of $2.4 million for the plaintiff, reducing it by 49.5% for the "comparative negligence of the plaintiff" the jury conveniently went as far as they could in assessing fault against the decedent without crossing the line into a defense verdict. The pooled jury said that they would have assessed 10% of the fault against the architect. Although the architect never made any site visits, the jury felt his obligations for safety on the job with regard tot he public were not clearly in his contract. With a $2.4 million verdict, $240,000 would have been assessed against the architect!
The Impact on the Architect
Because the architect was insured, his only monetary loss was his $5,000 deductible, Because of our accurate analysis of the sympathetic jury, we saved $240,000 in loss payment, obtained a confidential settlement and avoided the publicity against the architect for a large verdict. Because of his insurance coverage, the architect still has a business and respect of his community.
Are you insured for your design professional liability?
Are you backed by a dedicated carrier?
Call me today for a FREE NO OBLIGATION QUOTE, IN 24 HOURS OR LESS!
(800) 972-1893
|
