Intoxicated Driver Wins Millions in Bus Accident

By Natalie White

A California jury recently awarded $6 million to a man whose pick up truck was hit by a speeding bus, despite the fact that he had been drinking heavily and backed out of the driveway without being able to see oncoming traffic.

While plaintiff’s attorneys Arash Homampour and Philip Kaufler were not able to erase their client’s personal fault, they did manage to mitigate his actions in the eyes of jurors who awarded a multi-million verdict to Ramone Melendez, a 63-year old construction worker from El Salvador.

Jurors handed down a $12 million verdict, but found Melendez 50 percent at fault, leaving him with a $6 million award.

The case was based on a 2003 accident in which a Los Angeles County bus smashed into the rear of Melendez’s pick up truck, spinning it around and down the street. After the impact the bus traveled another 60 feet, jumping the curb after the driver pulled the emergency brake.

Melendez was transported to the hospital, where he was treated for a broken neck and a brain injury that has left him confined to a wheelchair with limited use of his arms and legs, as well as a significant short-term memory deficit. He was in the hospital for two months before transferring to Rancho Los Amigos Hospital for two additional months of rehabilitation therapy.

Homampour said Melendez’s health care bills total more than $800,000.

During discovery the defense claimed that the bus was going just 15 to 20 mph and that plaintiff backed out a high rate of speed.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority presented a key witness who testified that she saw Melendez’s pick up gun out of the driveway.

But during cross examination, Homampour confronted her with a tape recorded deposition in which she said she didn’t see the pick up until impact. Homampour said that the witness based her conclusion on the sound of burning rubber, but he told the jury that this sound was actually made by the bus braking, not the pick up.

Accident reconstructionists for the plaintiff also testified that the pick up backed out at 3 to 6 miles per hour.

Tackling the Drinking Issue

On Sept. 14, 2003 Melendez was visiting a friend who lives on a narrow LA residential street. The two spent the day visiting and working on the friend’s car, which needed its alternator replaced. During the day the two had lunch, drank several beers and had an afternoon snack.

Defense attorney Paul O’Reilly declined to comment on the case, but at trial he argued that Melendez was intoxicated and impaired when he left his friend’s house, Homampour said. The defense had experts that testified the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, but he was never charged with DUI.

The plaintiff’s attorneys decided the best strategy to combat the drinking defense was to confront it head on. They admitted he consumed 10 to 12 beers during the day, but countered with the argument that alcohol had nothing to do with the accident – because according to his friend, Melendez was not impaired when he left and was not driving drunkenly.

“When he left he got into his pickup truck, he put on his seat belt and he backed out of the driveway very slowly because he couldn’t see oncoming traffic because of other vehicles parked on the narrow street,” Homampour said. “This accident was not caused by alcohol but by a speeding bus.”

Stressing that theme – that speeding and not alcohol caused the accident – was key to the plaintiff’s strategy, Homampour said. He said that they also had to fight juror’s opinions that Melendez should not have backed into the street without being able to see oncoming traffic.

Homampour said he asked jurors whether they had ever been in a parking lot unable to see traffic because of a van parked next to them. “What do you do? You back out slowly and you hope no one is coming like a yahoo,” he said.

He argued that this is what Melendez did in this case – backed out carefully – and that the bus was at fault for barreling down a narrow residential street.

“Yes he was drinking, and yes he backed out without being able to see. But we argued that this would have happened to someone who was sober and that we all at some time have had to trust other drivers and trust that other drivers are using reasonable care operating their vehicles and not speeding,” Homampour said.

Establishing Speed

The plaintiff’s team also contested the conclusion of the initial investigator that the bus had been traveling under the street’s 25 mph speed limit. Homampour said his experts studied the accident reports and discovered the investigator used a faulty formula to establish his conclusion.

“If you looked at the amount if distance the bus traveled after the impact, you could tell it was impossible for the bus to be going the speed limit and it was clear that the officer made a mistake,” he said. “Even their own expert had to agree the speed had been miscalculated and that it was from 35 to 39 miles per hour.”

The plaintiffs supported this argument with video evidence obtained during discovery. For security purposes, the bus was equipped with three interior cameras that recorded time stamped images captured in one second intervals. One of the cameras had a view outside the driver’s window, and from markings on the street, the plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist was able to confirm that the bus was going nearly 40mph.

The video was also damning in that it showed the driver driving with one hand and, at times, with no hand balancing the wheel on her finger or knee, Homampour said. The plaintiffs used the MTA’s own operator rulebook to establish that drivers should always drive with two hands on the steering wheel.

Damages

The defense also argued that it should not be held liable for damages because the plaintiff’s spinal injury was not a result of the accident. They based this on a CT scan taken the day of the accident that showed the plaintiff’s back was normal. The defense did not dispute that he suffered an injury, only that it occurred sometime after the accident.

But plaintiff’s orthopedic expert testified that the spinal tear could be misread as normal because the plaintiff also had a degenerative damage that could mask the problem.

The jury awarded $807,000 for past medical cost, $5million for future medical costs, $1,000,000 for past pain and suffering, and $5.1million future pain and suffering.

Based on interviews with jurors after the trial, Homampour said they assigned his client 50 percent of the fault largely because of the backing out issue and not the alcohol.

“They said that the alcohol wasn’t a big factor because he had only driven 10 feet – but I still think that subconsciously, it was because of the alcohol,” Homampour said.

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Arash Homampour of the Homampour Law Firm in Beverly Hills, Calif; and Philip Kaufler of the Law Offices of Philip Kaufler in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Defense Attorney: Paul O’Reilly of the Law Offices of O’Reilly & McDermott in Torrance, Calif.

The Case: Melendez v Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority; August 2, 2005; Los Angeles Superior Court; Judge Robert Higa