Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

On Mother’s Day, 2002, five-year-old Leilani Guitierrez was a passenger in her mother’s Suburban. They were headed home from a carousel ride in Costa Mesa, California.

This innocent little girl’s life was turned upside down by a Defense Department worker’s negligence. The worker ran a red light and broadsided the Guitierrez’s vehicle, sending it careening into a utility pole. The injuries were catastrophic. The bones in Leilani’s neck were crushed.

This little girl will spend the rest of her life – a life that will probably end by the age of 35 – in a motorized wheelchair. She spent 250 days in the hospital and has endured 24 surgeries. Leilani will require complete assistance with all the tasks associated with everyday life - eating, dressing, bathing, and getting into the wheelchair - her only means of moving. She still has her mind, but the functioning of her body was lost forever.

Leilani and her parents filed suit against the government. Like any other employer, the government is responsible for the negligent driving of its employees while they are on official business. The federal district court awarded $54 million in actual damages to Leilani this week. An additional $1 million judgment went to her parents for their own suffering as a result of seeing their child suffer.

As in any case involving a minor, the court will oversee distributions of the funds, to make sure that the funds are spent on medical expenses and related care. Much of the judgment will go to pay past medical expenses.

While this is a large award, I want to point out two aspects of this judgment to those who cry out for so-called “tort reform.” First, this isn’t a case of a run-away jury, because there was no jury. A U.S. District Court judge determined the amount of Leilani Guitierrez’s damages. Second, there were no punitive damages in this case. $23 million of this award is for the proven actual cost of caring for a completely helpless little girl, around the clock ... for the rest of her life. $31 million is to compensate her for her suffering and the loss of opportunity for an ordinary life. Leilani’s case shows why absolute caps on damages are short-sighted. There are instances where an injured person’s actual, proven damages are extraordinarily high. But these are the exception, rather than the rule. The cap argument comes down to a simple question: In an exceptional case, who should bear the extra costs- the victim or the wrongdoer? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as for me, I’m proud to fight for the victim.

Thanks to the Orange County Register