(323) 658 8077

Pedestrian Accidents

Record Setting $30 Million Wrongful Death Verdict In Ventura

Record Setting $30 Million Wrongful Death Verdict In Ventura

Another example of Arash’s ability to get outlier, record setting results in righteous cases. Yesterday, we obtained a $30 million jury verdict for the wrongful death of a beautiful young girl in Ventura County (an ultra conservative jurisdiction and with Spanish speaking parent Plaintiffs.) Defendant Trucking Company and its Insurance company refused to pay our repeated demands for their $1 million in policy limits.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$20,000,000 Single Plaintiff Settlement On $1,500,000 Policy

As many attorneys know, The Homampour Law Firm (HLF) is very selective in the cases it takes. We say “no” more than we say “yes” so that when the right case comes along we are ready to go. We are also one of the few firms in the state that have actually litigated and taken to trial what are called “bad faith” cases (or cases where an insurance company refuses to pay a policy limits demand and the injured party Plaintiff is attempting make the insurance company pay the full value of the claim which can be substantially in excess of the policy limits.)

Recently, HLF was brought in to help an attorney representing a pedestrian hit by a car, with what appeared to be minor injuries, where the driver had $1.5 million in insurance coverage.

The 41-year-old Plaintiff from El Salvador was lawfully within a crosswalk when he was struck by Defendant’s car. There was no reported loss of consciousness but abrasions to the left side of his head. X-rays, CTs and MRIs were initially normal. A subsequent MRI showed a meniscal tear in his left knee. Plaintiff reported excruciating pain in his knee and Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms. Months later, Plaintiff elected to have surgery to repair the tear. He was subsequently diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). He underwent extensive treatment for CRPS, none of which was effective. HLF recognized that Plaintiff’s life time of damages (with a condition that effectively locked him into a prison of pain) was substantially more than $1.5 million.

Defendant contended the following:

  • That Plaintiff was at fault for this incident since Defendant began her left turn before Plaintiff was in the crosswalk, arguing that Plaintiff should have seen her turning;

  • That she never saw Plaintiff get struck by her vehicle and that the impact was a minor tap;

  • That Plaintiff did not strike his head, did not sustain a mild TBI, and was arguably faking his TBI symptoms;

  • That the meniscus tear was pre-existing, unrelated to the incident, and did not necessitate surgical intervention;

  • That the CRPS Plaintiff developed from the surgery was not related to the incident; and

  • Though Defendant initially contended that Plaintiff did not have CRPS (according to their expert), later, Defendant contended that Plaintiff greatly exaggerated his CRPS symptoms.

Behind the scenes, HLF worked with the referring attorney to demand the $1.5 million in policy limits from the insurance company and to make sure the demand was legally proper to open the policy and to make the insurance company liable for the full value of the claim. The insurance company refused to pay the referring attorney’s demand for the policy limits despite multiple curated opportunities to do so and despite the fact that any reasonable insurance company acting reasonably to protect the Defendant would have recognized what HLF recognized – that an actual appraisal of Plaintiff’s harms and damages would be in the tens of millions.

Then, after being Associated in, HLF did what it does and reframed the entire case getting the defense experts to change their opinions and to basically become Plaintiff’s experts with them agreeing that:

  • Plaintiff sustained a meniscal tear in his left knee from the incident;

  • The tear required surgery;

  • Plaintiff developed severe CRPS as a result of the surgery;

  • The surgery was not performed negligently;

  • CRPS is incurable (especially given Plaintiff’s multiple failed treatments) and Plaintiff will likely suffer from CRPS for the rest of his life;

  • CRPS is one of the most chronic painful conditions known to man, to the extent someone may want to kill themselves or cut their leg off (as expressed by Plaintiff);

  • The pain from CRPS causes depression, anxiety, headaches, and cognitive issues similar to a brain injury; and

  • If asked by defense, they could have told them all of the above before the demand for policy limits expired.

We strategically planned, had patience, and executed on the plan to make the carrier pay top dollar. Defendant’s original offer was $500k. Throughout expert depositions, Defendant’s offer increased to the policy limit of $1.5 million and then again to $5 million. On the day before trial, the parties accepted the mediator’s proposal of $20 million.

Essential to this amazing result was the work of Attorney Danielle Lincors, who really knew how to deal with all the moving parts given her defense background.

The Homampour Law Firm seized this opportunity to get full justice for the client and capitalized on the insurance company’s unreasonableness and put the behemoth entity into a stranglehold forcing it to pay $20 million - and all with love. This is what we do.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name





To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$5,000,000 Auto Versus Pedestrian | Personal Injury And Wrongful Death

frak-lopez-89996-unsplash.jpg

$5,000,000

In May 2018 Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer  successfully obtained a $5 million dollar settlement on behalf of two minor children for the wrongful death of their mother.

In a very difficult liability case, plaintiff minors and their mother were pedestrians crossing the street mid-block to get to their home when they were struck by the defendant driving a work truck. The minors suffered minor injuries which they recovered from but their mother died as a result of the collision. The defense contended that our clients and their mother crossed a very busy street mid-block and outside of a marked crosswalk and failed to yield to oncoming traffic in violation of multiple Vehicle Code sections and were thus exclusively at fault for the incident. The defense also claimed that the driver would not have been able to see our clients in the roadway in time to avoid the collision because it was night time and our clients were wearing dark clothing. The police had determined that even knowing the exact positioning of the pedestrians in the roadway, the defendant driver would not have been able to avoid the collision and cited the decedent as the cause of the collision.

Undeterred by the police findings and difficult facts on liability, through dogged investigation and using the most advanced human factors and accident reconstruction methods,  the Homampour team was able to locate and obtain testimony from favorable witnesses and then show that the defendant driver had accelerated when passing a vehicle which had stopped in the roadway to allow the pedestrians to cross the street and the driver would have had sufficient time to see and stop for the pedestrians had he not been traveling at an unsafe speed and failed to exercise due care. 

Although the Homampour team was able to secure a sizeable settlement for our clients to fund their future education and needs, it will never replace the loss of their loving mother.

Image Credit: Unsplash


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email. We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

$1,875,000 Auto Versus Pedestrian

$1,875,000

In May 2017 Attorneys Arash Homampour & Scott Boyer successfully settled an Auto versus Pedestrian case for $1.875 million for the failure of a driver to yield to a pedestrian.

The Plaintiff, a grandmother of three, had a job and life that she loved. Prior to the incident, she was active and enjoyed the housekeeping job that she had had for many years. However, all of that changed when she was struck by the Defendant's vehicle while she was using the cross-walk to cross the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd and Pacific Ave. in the City of Manhattan Beach. The plaintiff was hospitalized from injuries caused from the auto striking her as she crossed the street within a lined crosswalk.

Defendants

Defendant was employed at a nearby school in Manhattan Beach. At the time of the incident, Defendant was traveling from her place of employment  to another school in Torrance to attend a breakfast for educators. Defendants do not dispute that Defendant was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the incident.

The Defendants acknowledged that the driver was negligent and one of the causes of the accident. The Defendants also contended that the arrangement of the intersection and crosswalk hindered the visibility of pedestrians while in the crosswalk and this hindrance prevented the Defendant from clearly seeing the plaintiff.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.12.30 AM.png

Incident Location

The incident occurred in the crosswalk at the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Pacific Avenue in Manhattan Beach. Manhattan Beach Blvd. is an eastbound/westbound City street consisting of four lanes, with two lanes in each direction. Pacific Avenue is a northbound/southbound City street consisting of two lanes, with a single lane in each direction. There is not a separate left hand turn lane for vehicles wanting to turn left from southbound Pacific Avenue on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd. The intersection is signal controlled in all four directions.

The subject crosswalk extends from the southeast corner to the northeast corner of the intersection. The crosswalk is clearly marked and there is a crosswalk signal located on both the southeast and northeast corners of the intersection. In addition, on the southeast corner of the intersection, there is a sign facing southbound traffic on Pacific Avenue which reads, “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians”.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.01 AM.png

Incident

The incident occurred on October 29, 2014. Defendant left her place of employment at approximately 8:45 a.m. and intended to head to the breakfast event at a nearby school which started at 9:00 a.m. Defendant traveled south on Pacific Ave. for a few minutes before she came to a red light at the intersection with Manhattan Beach Blvd. She was in the number one lane intending to turn left on to eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

Defendant drew her route as follows:

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 10.13.25 AM.png

When the light turned green, the vehicle in front of Defendant went straight through the intersection. There was not any traffic heading north on Pacific Ave. and Defendant began her left turn. As Defendant made her left turn, she was looking east toward Sepulveda Blvd. which was three full blocks east of Pacific Ave. and was the intersection at which she needed to make her next turn. Defendant described the traffic as backed-up on eastbound Manhattan Beach Blvd.

At the same time, Plaintiff, was walking in the crosswalk, intending to travel from the southeast corner of the intersection to the northeast corner. Plaintiff had previously activated the crosswalk signal which, as the witnesses also stated was illuminated before she entered the intersection via the marked crosswalk.

Unfortunately, Defendant continued to make her left turn as Plaintiff crossed the intersection in the marked crosswalk and Defendant struck Plaintiff with her vehicle. Per the eyewitness accounts, after Plaintiff was struck by Defendant's vehicle, she fell to the ground and rolled several times before coming to rest near the south curb line of ManhattanBeach Blvd. Prior to the impact, witnesses did not hear brakes squeal and no skid marks or brake marks were noted on the asphalt. Plaintiff had no recollection of Defendant's vehicle striking her, and the next thing she recalled after stepping off the curb to use the crosswalk was waking up in the hospital.

After the impact, witnesses observed that Plaintiff had an open wound to the back of her head, she appeared to not be conscious and the only sign of life was a gurgling out of her mouth. There was a large amount of blood loss and blood was coming out of Plaintiff's mouth. According to the witnesses, Plaintiff did not appear to gain consciousness before the paramedics transported her to the hospital. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered a concussion and a number of orthopedic and other injuries.

The Result

The Homampour team were able to deduce that the Defendant, who was driving to a work-related event at the time of the accident, made an unsafe left turn and did not yield to the Plaintiff in the marked crosswalk, thus resulting in the favorable settlement for the plaintiff of $1.875 million. The team also contended that the Defendant’s employer was vicariously liable since she was heading to a work event.


If you'd like to receive more articles like this, sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team of attorneys that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.

Premises Liability - $4,350,000

$4,350,000

In March 2017, Attorneys Arash Homampour and Scott Boyer settled a challenging liability Premise Liability case for $4.35 million.  The case initially appeared to be an ordinary but tragic Motor Vehicle versus Pedestrian accident. The Plaintiff, a 36 year old student, was riding his skateboard on an access road of a school when he was struck by a car causing horrific injuries: near amputation of his right arm with resultant reattachment surgery, finger amputation, multiple other surgeries, post-traumatic stress disorder and severe emotional distress.

Another law firm sought out the Homampour team to help with the case and a premise liability claim was brought against the school for maintaining an unsafe premises. We contended that the school negligently designed and constructed a trash bin enclosure so that it obstructed the view for students entering the access road from the walkway ramp and vehicles traveling down the access road. We established that defendant school should have been aware through reasonable inspections of the dangerous condition created by the obstruction and failed to take any corrective action or warn of the dangers.

Defendant school fought back arguing that the location was safe, there was no ordinance requiring a crosswalk or warning sign in the access road and there had been no similar accidents in the area since the trash bin enclosure was constructed in 2003. Defendant school contended that plaintiff was exclusively (or comparatively) at fault for the incident by knowingly riding his skateboard down a ramp, in violation of school policy, into a known parking lot/access road area without first determining whether there was any danger from oncoming traffic. Defendant also contended that the other driver was responsible for failing to keep a proper look out. Defendants also contended that the trash bin enclosure was open and obvious and the absence of any prior similar accidents evidenced the alleged configuration did not constitute a dangerous condition. Plaintiff had both driven and ridden his skateboard in the access road numerous times before the incident.

Despite these challenges and through aggressive and creative lawyering, the Homampour Team was able to obtain this phenomenal result for this client.


Sign up for the Homampour Attorney's Email.  We publish articles written by Arash and his team that deliver real insight into different areas of the law.

Name *
Name

To talk to one of our Los Angeles personal injury lawyers, call 323-658-8077. Or, if you prefer, send us an email by clicking on the red button below.

  • Initial consultations are free and we take cases on a contingency — which means there is no fee if there is no recovery.
  • Our multilingual staff speaks Spanish, Farsi and Armenian.
  • We also can handle complex cases via attorney referral.