Seattle Partner Michael Jaeger Wins Defense Verdict

Seattle Partner Michael A. Jaeger recently obtained a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a fall from a skateboard.

The plaintiff was drinking with a friend outside of his brother-in-law’s house after work when the defendant rode by on his longboard and fell in the street in front of the house. The plaintiff approached laughing and took the skateboard without permission. He was starting to skate away when the defendant got up and put his foot behind the rear wheels to stop the skateboard, causing the plaintiff to fall forward onto his outstretched arms. The fall dislocated and fractured the plaintiff’s right elbow.

The plaintiff, a carpenter by trade, claimed medical expenses of $91,000, lost wages of $10,000, and damages for pain and suffering. He sustained a right elbow dislocation and fracture with a disruption to the ulnar nerve and subsequent surgery to repair the damage. He claimed a permanent 30 percent reduction in range of motion on extension and loss of sensation in his dominant right arm.

The defendant admitted that he stuck his foot behind the rear wheel of the board but argued that the plaintiff’s intoxication was a proximate cause of the fall. The defendant argued that the plaintiff could have simply stepped off the board had he not been intoxicated, given the slow speed of the skateboard.

The plaintiff claimed he drank a 16-ounce beer and a shot of “moonshine” before the accident. When he was taken to the emergency room, his blood alcohol content measured at .107 percent. Based on the medical record and testimony, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had consumed at least five or six alcoholic beverages before the subject incident. The defendant’s expert toxicologist testified it would be impossible for the plaintiff to only have consumed two drinks and have a blood alcohol content of .107 percent. Furthermore, an individual with a .107 percent blood alcohol content would experience significant alcohol-related impairment of his reflexes, reaction time, and ability to balance.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the plaintiff was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the subject accident and that his intoxication was a proximate cause of the accident. The court ruled that the plaintiff was intoxicated but declined to find proximate cause, leaving the allocation of fault for a jury to decide.

The plaintiff had demanded $300,000 in limits. Just before trial, the plaintiff lowered his demand to $100,000. The defendant extended an offer of $20,000.

At trial, the plaintiff presented his own testimony as well as the testimony of his brother-in-law and a billing expert to testify that the medical charges were reasonable. The defense presented the testimony of the defendant, a witness to the subject accident, and a toxicologist.

Following the three-day trial, the jury found both the plaintiff and defendant were negligent and a proximate cause of the accident. However, Washington law provides that if a trier of fact finds the plaintiff was intoxicated, and the intoxication was a proximate cause of the accident, and more than 50 percent of fault is assigned to the plaintiff, then by statute it is a complete defense verdict.

The jury found the plaintiff in the instant suit more than 50 percent at fault, resulting in a defense verdict for our client.