Commercial Truck Accident Settlement Case $11 Million Verdict

auto, train, construction, truck, and aviation accidents

The $11 Million Verdict - Mr. Baizer's Closing Statement involving a commercial truck accident running a red light and 57 miles per hour resulting in the loss of a young boy's life. I suggest to you that for her loss in this case, Gisela, that her loss should be valued at $1.5 million, that Ulyses' loss should be valued at $1.5 million, that Maria's loss should be valued at $4 million, and that Alberto's loss should be valued at $4 million. I'm going to ask you when you deliberate to fill in $11 million on the verdict form.

• home
• our successes
• our practice areas
• our attorneys
• at trial
• contact us

The $11 Million Verdict - Mr. Baizer's Closing Statement:

Good morning. It's August 24th, 2002, and USF Holland's driver, Thomas Klatt, is heading back home to Wisconsin. It's 4:40 a.m., and he is on auto pilot. He has driven this route hundreds of times. It's very possible that at 4:40 a.m., at 4:00 a.m., he has never seen a red light going northbound on 41. He is on auto pilot.

As the 18-wheeler heads towards Stearns School Road, the driver either dozes off or, as Dr. Moore-Ede described it, has a microsleep, or he's otherwise distracted, or for some reason he chooses to run a red light. 150 to 170 feet past the middle of the intersection, the USF Holland truck plows into the rear of Alberto's Honda Civic. A few hours later, the Davilas get that knock on their door that every parent lives in fear of. That ended the life of a terrific kid, and that ended the -- or altered the lives of a wonderful family forever.

I want to talk to you for a minute now about accepting responsibility. Don't we all try to each teach our children to accept responsibility for their own actions? Don't we try to teach our children to accept the consequences of their own conduct? Don't we all try to teach our children not to blame others for their own mistakes? Aren't corporations accountable, also?

This case is about not accepting responsibility. This case is about wanting to avoid accountability, not accepting accountability. According to the defense in this case, they would have you believe that this crash happened because of Alberto's Circadian Rhythms. They would have you believe that this crash happened because for one half of a second maybe, his taillight wasn't visible to the truck driver. They would have you believe that the truck rear-ended Alberto's car and, well, it was just Alberto's fault. That's what they want you to believe. Folks, this is a rear-end truck crash that did not happen in an intersection. It happened past the intersection.

Now, to believe USF Holland's case that it had a green light, you must find Mr. Klatt credible. If Mr. Klatt is not credible, then there's absolutely, positively no evidence in this case that he had a red light -- excuse me -- that he had a green light. Nobody else, none of their experts say it's more likely than not that the USF Holland truck had a green light, so it is all Mr. Klatt.

Let's look now at some of the things that he has said under oath. First, it was raining and the roads were wet. Well, what their expert says, Mr. Rogers:

"Question: If the roads are wet, the truck driver had a red light, right? "Answer: That would be true."

So if you believe Mr. Klatt that it's raining, the case is over. He ran a red light. Now, Mr. Klatt said that it was raining, he said the roads were wet, and he said all of that when he was questioned by his own lawyer, not by me. USF Holland now apparently is trying to disavow that sworn testimony of its own employee.

What else did he say? He said that he slammed on his brakes 100 feet before rear-ending Alberto. That's what he said at his deposition. That's what he said before the black box. At trial, he said he didn't touch his brakes because it was raining and he was afraid he would jackknife. So first under oath he slammed on his brakes, then the black box, and then he would never have applied his brakes because the roads were wet.

He testified under oath he saw Alberto's car four to 500 feet before -- when it was four to 500 feet away from him, and then he said he never saw it. "All of a sudden, boom." He told Kurek, Deputy Kurek, that he didn't know the color of the light. He had no idea. He told him that in the hospital, and he told him that on the phone.

So I'm not sure who or what USF Holland is going to suggest actually happened, but from his own mouth Mr. Klatt says he's going 57 miles in the rain in a construction zone with a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit. Mr. Klatt swore he was going 40 miles an hour when he rear-ended the Honda but, again, that was before Dave Sallman told us to ask about the ECM. That was before Dave Sallman said: You know, I think there might have been a black box in that truck.

You don't need much of an imagination to figure out where we would be today in this trial if there weren't a black box.

He said he tried to take a nap but that he wasn't tired. Do people really try to take naps when they've had a good night's sleep and they're not tired? He said he has never driven while tired. Has anybody in the world ever driven for 50 years and never been tired?

He said he had a green light. He said it to you from the witness stand. He didn't say it to Kurek when he was being questioned by the investigating police officer. He didn't say: Hey, I had a green light. I don't know where that kid came from.

He didn't say: That other guy ran the red light. He gave him all these details about when he woke up and how many hours sleep he had and all that, and he said: I don't know what color the light was.

Why in the world would anyone believe that testimony at this time? ....

Well, we know some undisputed facts. Speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Black box says 57 miles per hour. Black box establishes the truck driver never hit his brakes. They've admitted he never touched his brakes. Thomas Klatt did not know about the black box when he testified under oath at his deposition. Traffic signals were functioning. The USF Holland truck crossed its traffic sensor 5.5 seconds before it crashed into Alberto's Honda. No drugs or alcohol was used, and all of the lights on the vehicles were functioning. We know all of that.

..., according to their experts, Alberto had to go through a red light onto a U.S. highway without being able to see at all where traffic was coming from his left because of all those trees. He's first going to cross the southbound lane, couldn't see them at all, and he had to go, to make this possible, 25 miles per hour onto a highway that he couldn't see anything.

Then after making that suicidal move, he had to slow down, ....

So they're going to explain to you why a kid like Alberto would do something like this and then only go 30 miles an hour. You know, forget about a kid like Alberto. Why would anybody in the world do something like this? Why would Alberto play Russian Roulette with his life and the lives of his best friends? Why would Alberto risk his car that his dad had bought for him, that his dad had worked hard to make money to buy for him, that he treated like his own child? He washed it every day. Why would he do this to his car? Why would Alberto Davila do something so stupid, so reckless, and so disrespectful? I'm anxious to hear from the other side why he would do that.

Just briefly, let's look at some of the words that have been used in this trial to describe Alberto. This is from his brother, "role model." Some role model to go riding with his friends through a red light at 25 miles an hour. "Respectable." Alex, one of the words he used to describe him was "respectful." "Intelligent," not a very smart thing to do. "Dependable" and "responsible," this is from his lifelong friend that he grew up with, "thankful." He was thankful for everything that he would get from friends and especially family, and "caring." "He was my friend and always let me know I was one of his brothers."

Now I'll switch course a little bit. One of the other things that Judge Manning told you about was pecuniary loss. In this case, pecuniary loss is loss of society. You can consider definitely how close this family was, and I don't think anyone doubts that this was a close family. Alberto's last words were about his family, about his mother.

Here's what Judge Manning told you is included in loss of society: the mutual benefits that each family member receives from the others' continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, guidance, and protection.

Judge Manning read you a life expectancy chart or an instruction involving life expectancy, and here's what those are relevant to. Alberto's life expectancy was 57 years if he had lived. His brother's and sister's are longer. They will live the rest of their lives without him statistically for 57 years.

If we go back in time, we can picture how long 57 years is. If this crash had happened in 1946, they would have lived without Alberto until now, 57 years. In 1946, World War II had just ended, Harry Truman was President, and President Bush wasn't even born. That's what Gisela and Ulyses are going to experience a life without Alberto for, Maria 38 years, Alberto 31 years.

Now, in determining the damages, don't look at the death of the child, but look at the life that won't be. Don't look at the death of a fine young man, but look at the life of a man that won't be. I want to take a little bit of time to talk about that.

Maria and Alberto will never have the joy of greeting their son when he comes home after his first day of college. They will never attend his college graduation. They will never have the pride of seeing him become a lawyer or a mechanic. He loved cars, so maybe he would have been a mechanic, a good one, maybe an automotive engineer. They'll never walk down the aisle at his wedding. They'll never hold his children, their grandchildren, in their arms.

Ulyses will never grow up to be just like Alberto, because Alberto will never grow up. Ulyses won't have Alberto as the best man at his wedding. When Gisela one day has little Alberto, there won't be Uncle Alberto to be his godfather. The whole family won't have Alberto to celebrate with them at the baptisms of Ulyses' and Gisela's kids. They won't have him to pray with them in church every Sunday. They won't have him to go to gramma's, or maybe one day it will be Gisela's house for Sunday lunch. They won't have him to grieve with them at funerals of friends or family or maybe one of their own funerals one day.

Alberto is never going to go fishing or play baseball or work around the house with his son. For 57 years, he won't be there to cheer them up when they're down or make them laugh when they're crying. For 57 years, there's going to be an empty chair at the dinner table. Alberto will never again dance with his mother on New Year's Eve and make that funny face that we saw in the video. He's never going to be with his mother to celebrate her birthdays, which fall on the day he died. There won't be any birthday celebrations for Maria. They'll all be observed at the cemetery.

Today you are our judicial system. You have an awesome power. You have the power to tell Maria how our society values the life of her son. You have the power to tell Alberto how our society values the life of his son. You have the power to tell Gisela and Ulyses how our society values the life of their brother.

Let's talk for a minute about certain values society has just briefly. Alex Rodriguez has a $250,000 contract. Kevin Garnett signed one for 300,000. Well, that's 250 million or 300 million. Excuse me. There's $50 million race horses. There's $100 million pieces of art. There's utility infielders all over baseball who make $4 million a year.

Now you have to determine how society should value, because you're the spokespersons for society, their loss. You're going to be given three choices of verdicts. I'm suggesting to you that the proper verdict is Verdict Form A. Verdict Form A is that you find for the Davilas and against the defendants.

Then you're going to have to put in an amount and make a recommendation. I suggest to you that for her loss in this case, Gisela, that her loss should be valued at $1.5 million, that Ulyses' loss should be valued at $1.5 million, that Maria's loss should be valued at $4 million, and that Alberto's loss should be valued at $4 million. I'm going to ask you when you deliberate to fill in $11 million on the verdict form, Verdict Form A.

On behalf of Maria and Alberto and Joe, I want to thank you for spending these last two weeks with us and for taking time out of your valuable lives, taking time away from your work, taking time away from your family, taking time away from whatever.

If I did anything to offend you during this trial, if I was too aggressive in my cross-examination, if I couldn't work this bar code reader, if I cut off Dr. Moore-Ede and was told by Judge Manning to let him finish his answers too much, if I did any of those things, I'm sorry, but please don't take it out on them. Please don't take that out on this wonderful family.

Over the last year, I've really gotten to know them, and it's really been my honor to get to know these two people. they are terrific people. They are the salt of the earth. Until this tragedy, they were living the American dream. They worked hard and provided for their children, 25 years at the same job, 20 years at the same job. Everything they did was for and about their family.

They trusted Joe and me now for the last year or so, and the case is about to go to you. I want you to know that they trust the system, they trust you, and they know that whatever you decide will be the right thing. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Baizer.