sr-031180-6nRLK:SKS:ms 2/27/80
Council Nita; 3/11/80:"
NFIDSNTIAL - PENDING
ZITIGATION
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODIICTT(~N
City Council
City Attorney
Settlement of the case entitled John Federico v. City
of Santa Monica and Pitts Jefferson, Case No. 6VEC 57503
Santa Dionica, California
W
MAR 1 1 198®
Plaintiff John Federico, age 26, has brought a lawsuit
against the City of Santa Monica and bus driver Pitts Jefferson for
injuries which he received as a result of a collision which occurred
on June 14, 1978 at approximately 6:30 a.m. at the intersection of
Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue in West Los Angeles. Plaintiff's
injuries were severe, plaintiff having been in a comatose state for approx-
imately eleven days. Tfie severity of plaintiff's injuries,-discussed subse-
quently, creates a risk of substantial exposure on this case (the City
is self-insured for the first $100,000.00 - Transit Casualty Company
insures the City of Santa Monica for any amount beyond $100,000.00)
and thus the following staff report recommends approval by the City
Council for the proposed settlement in the sum of $20,000.00.
BACKGROUND:
The accident occurred on June 14, 1978 at approximately
6:30 a.m. at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue
in West Los Angeles. The bus, driven by Pitts Jefferson, was proceeding
south on Centinela Avenue when he approached the intersection of
Nebraska and Centinela. Mr. Jefferson states that he was traveling
approximately 30 to 35 m.p.h. when he observed the plaintiff's vehicle
in the intersection. The police report indicates a 25 m.p.h. speed
limit. The bus driver also stated, which was contradicted by all
independent witnesses, that the plaintiff was traveling 40 m.p.h.
Edmund Drakard, an independent witness, has estimated the bus driver's
speed to be between 40 to 45 m.p.h. This witness also states that the
plaintiff made a rolling stop at the intersection and was traveling
approximately 10 m.p.h. at the time of the collision. The statement
of witness Drakard concerning the plaintiff's speed seems to be more
-1- MAR 1 1 199fl
RLK:SKS:mS 2/28/80
Council Mtg: 3/11/30
reasonable because of the fact that the plaintiff probably made a
rolling stop and could not have accelerated to 40 m.p.h. in such a
short distance. Further, an independent reconstruction expert has
been hired regarding the issue of causation and he concluded that the
bus was probably traveling between 27-1/2 and 35 m.p.h,
West Los Angeles Police Report No. DR 78-337151 lists the
primary collision factor as violation of Vehicle Code §22450 (stop
requirements) and lists as other associated factors to the accident
as "inattention'" on the part of Federico and violation of California
Vehicle Code X22350 (speeding) on the part o£ our bus driver. It
should be noted that the bus driver, at the time of the incident, was
off-route and was terminated shortly thereafter this accident. Bus
drive, Pitts Jefferson, currently has a Complaint pending against the
City of Santa Monica for wrongful termination of employment. As a
result of said action, P4r. Jefferson is not likely to be an overly
cooperative witness. Plaintiff's allegation is that the bus driver, had
he been traveling within the seed limit, had the "last clear chance"
to avoid the accident. Defendants contend that the speed of the bus was
not the proximate cause of the accident.
INJURIES:
The plaintiff, driving a 1974 Ford Econo Van, was thrown
from his vehicle upon. collision. He was unconscious at the time of
the accident and was admitted to the hospital in a comatose state and.
remained in said state for eleven days. Plaintiff.'s medical reports
indicate that he fractured ribs four through seven, had a hemothorax
(a collection of blood in the space between the lungs and chest wall),
a nneumothorax (a collection of blood and air in the pleuaral cavity),
a severe cerebral contusion, including the brain stem, cerebral edema,
fractures involving the left transverse processes of the first, second,
third and fourth lumbar vertebra with only minimal displacement of
fragments, and multiple abrasions and contusions which were superficially
imposed over the body.
Plaintiff's brain injuries were considered the most severe
and his lung injuries considered the second most severe. On June 25th,
when plaintiff began to awaken, the hemothorax required surgery and the
thoracotomy was performed. As the patient regained consciousness and
began to ambulate, neurological deficit became apparent. There .was
-2-
RLK:SKS:ms 2/28/30
Council Mtg: 3/11/80;.
moderate weakness of the left upper extremity with moderate to severe
ataxia (lack of muscle coordination) in the straight-of-way gate.
Plaintiff was kept in the hospital until August 7, 1978.
Plaintiff has returned to New York to live with his parents
and in New York has been treated by Drs. Torino, Cohen, Gordon, Kuperman,
Horne, Shipman, Schlessinger for problems associated with his lungs,
eyesight and neurological problems. Mr. Federico suffered from diplopia
(double vision); lack of coordination and weakness in the lower left
extremity; and proper balance; dizzy spells; headaches; partial amnesia
and shortness of temper. A current medical report from Dr. Bruce L.
Gordon, Opthamologist, in white Plains, New York, indicates that the
plaintiff has undergone another surgery performed by Dr. Cohen in New
York City which has corrected his diplopia, oblique palsy and myopia
with the help of corrective lenses.
MEDICAL SPECIALS TO DATE:
Plaintiff has incurred approximately $55,718.49 in medical
specials, not including the amount of the recent surgery per.f_ormed by
Dr. Cohen. $37,000.00 of said figure was for hospitalizations at Santa
Monica Hospital. The medical bills incurred in New York have not been
submitted to the City.
RECOMMENDATIOSd REGARDING SETTLEMENT:
The proposed $20,000.00 settlement is an excellent settle-
ment to the City of Santa Monica. To settle this case at this time
for one-third the medical specials, not taking into consideration his
loss of earnings and impairment to his earning capacity, would save
the City of Santa Monica substantial amounts of money on further investi-
gation and discovery (depositions and independent exams to be performed
in New York, place of plaintiff's residence) and the cost of further
litigation. Transit Casualty, by Robert Whipple, Claims Manager, has
endorsed said settlement and has described said proposed settlement as
an excellent settlement on behalf of the City. (Attached is S%Ir. G+7hipple's
February 21, 1980 letter).
The alternatives to approving this settlement are to pro-
ceed to a more expensive stage of discovery, depositions in New York
and numerous independent medical exams and obtainments of records in
-3-
RLK:SKS:ms 2/28/80
Council Mtg: 3/11/80:
New York. A settlement at this time would save the City from expen-
sive discovery, expensive trial preparation (for defendant to ade-
quately prepare the case for trial, at least four defense physicians
would be called to testify, in addition to a recohstructipn expert)
and the threat of severe exposure to the City. The City Attorney's
Office highly recommends this settlement with no doubts whatsoever.
PREPARED BY:
RICHARD L. KNICKERBOCKER, City Attorney
SHARI R. SILVEP,, Assistant City Attorney
Enclosure: Copy of Transit Casualty Letter of 2/21/80.
_q_
~ i
Tr ~
BENEFIG AL PLAZP O BOX 60086HIR LOSO ANGELE6, CA LIOFORN AEg0060 ALIFORNIq 80010
February 21, 1980
Ms. Sherri Silver
Office of the City Attorney
City. Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monic-, California 90401
Re: Our File: OS-78-36903
John Federico vs City of Santa Monica
Dear Sherri:
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1980. In the event
you have the opportunity to settle the injury case of John
Federico for an amount of $20,000 it will have been an excel-
lent settlement on behalf of your employer, in our opinion.
The injuries to Federico are of a serious nature, coupled with
the comparative negligence of our driver that could result in
a much higher verdict than $20,000 that you may be successful
in disposing the case at. If this case went to trial, plaintiff
and his witnesses make excellent witnesses as to credibility,
coupled with the severity of injury to plaintiff it is our
thinking that verdict could reach over your self-retention.
Therefore, you have performed an excellent service for your
client by settling this case at the suggested $20,000 offer
of settlement.
Kind personal regards,
l7 i ~~.~
Bob Whipple, Manager
Claim Litigation
BWcnh
AN AFFILIATE OF BENEFICIAL STANDARD COPRORATION