Child Was Injured After Failing off Riding Mower

Settlement: $300,000.00
Case Type: Motor Vehicle - Lawn Mower
Case: No. 2729/01
Venue: Ulster Supreme, NY
Date: 07-31-2002

PLAINTIFF(S)
Attorney: Martin P. Rutberg; Rutberg & Associates, P.C.; Poughkeepsie, NY

DEFENDANT(S)
Attorney: Anonymous

Facts: Plaintiff, 5, was visiting her grandfather's home in Modena, NY. The Defendant (her father) who was divorced from Plaintiff's mother, was visiting for the day. The Defendant was using an industrial riding mower to cut the premises' lawn. The plaintiff was seated on the Defendant's lap. Testimony indicated that the plaintiff slipped off his lap and fell to the ground. As the Defendant reached down to grab her, his foot pressed the pedal of the mower’s hydrostatic transmission, and the mower moved in reverse. The mower's blades passed over the plaintiff's right elbow and inflicted serious injuries. The Defendant had been operating the mower with the discharge-chute safety cover wired-secured in an open position. The Plaintiff claimed that her father disregarded warnings printed on the mower. The warnings read “no passengers,” “do not operate near children”, and “do not disable discharge-chute safety covers.” Similar warnings were also contained in the mower's operating manual. The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was opposed by her father on the grounds of the parental-supervision doctrine. Which states that a parent is not liable for an unwise choice or poor exercise of judgment. The Defendant claimed immunity on those grounds. The Plaintiff countered that a lack of supervision did not cause or contribute to the accident; rather, that the accident resulted from the Defendant's affirmative negligence. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that her father transported a small child on a dangerous machine that was being operated in a dangerous manner, and that he dropped the child to the ground. It was contended that these negligent actions were not precluded by the parent-child relationship, the court granted the summary-judgment motion.

Injury: The plaintiff suffered a decimated right elbow with muscle, nerve and tendon lacerations: open fractures: and detachments. She underwent two surgical procedures, which entailed irrigation, debridement and repair of the medial epicedial and coronoid process; necrolysis of the median nerve; repair of the brachial artery; fasciotomies; repair of a totally lacerated ulnar nerve; and closure of skin edges along multiple lines of lacerations and gouges. She also claimed to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The plaintiff’s elbow has a somewhat dislocated appearance, and she has extensive scarring on her elbow and forearm. She also has slight clawing of the second, fourth and fifth fingers of her right hand, and mild-to-moderate sensory changes in her elbow, forearm and hand. However, she has a near-normal range of motion in her elbow, and her arm is functional, with some limitations. The defendant's IME physician confirmed the permanency of her injuries.

Verdict Information: The parties settled after summary Judgment. The structured settlement has a present-day value equivalent to the $300,000 limit of the defendant's insurance policy. After fees, disbursements and medical-expense redemptions, the settlement’s present day value drops to $183,523. The settlement will produce a net guaranteed payout of $1,354,951 over the plaintiff's lifetime.