Miguel Ernesto Ortega Bautista vs. Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner, an individual, et al

Case Background

On March 04, 2019, Plaintiff Miguel Ernesto Ortega Bautista filed a Auto vehicle collision lawsuit in the California State, Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Case number: 19STCV07450). Judges Ian C. Fusselman, Lynne M. Hobbs, Jill Feeney and Thomas D. Long presided over the case.

Cause

Redondo Beach, California. While proceeding through the intersection at Felton on a green light, Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner made an unsafe left turn and collided with Bautista’s vehicle. She violated California Vehicle Code section 21801(a), which mandated that drivers intending to make a left turn or U-turn yield the right-of-way to all approaching vehicles from the opposite direction that were close enough to constitute a hazard. The code further required drivers to continue yielding until the left turn or U-turn could be completed with reasonable safety. The collision occurred because Weiner failed to comply with these traffic regulations and other applicable statutes unknown to Bautista at the time of filing.

Injuries

The Auto vehicle collision inflicted substantial injuries on Bautista, including significant damage to his overall health and physical strength, severe shock to his system, traumatic injury to his nervous system, and a reduction in his physical activities and capabilities. He endured ongoing mental anguish, emotional distress, persistent physical pain, and long-term health complications. These injuries immediately traumatized him physically and psychologically, significantly reducing his quality of life and impacting his daily activities.

Damages

The Auto vehicle collision caused Bautista significant economic hardship. He incurred medical expenses, including hospital bills, physician fees, and ongoing treatment costs. Bautista lost wages due to his inability to work and suffered reduced earning capacity, impacting his future income. His property was damaged, requiring repairs or replacement, and he lost its use during that time. Additional losses included transportation expenses for medical treatment and other recovery-related costs.

Bautista sought judgment for all economic and non-economic damages, including medical expenses, lost earnings, property damage, pain and suffering, and other provable damages. He also sought recovery of court costs and any additional relief the Court deemed fair and just. All damage claims were subject to proof at trial, where Bautista intended to present evidence for each loss.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Miguel Ernesto Ortega Bautista
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: ChristopherArdalan | Maryam D. Ardalan |  Geoffrey S. Hickey | Christienne M. Papa
    • Experts for Plaintiff(s): Babak Samimi, MD | Joseph G. Yates
  • Defendant(s):Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner, an individual | John Weiner
    • Counsel for Defendants: Kim Puckett | Patrick Joseph Gibbs |  Jennifer L. Russell | Samantha M. Sannes

Claims

Bautista filed two causes of action in a Auto vehicle collision lawsuit. First, in his claim for motor vehicle negligence, he alleged that Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner negligently operated the vehicle, causing the collision. He held John Weiner liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to Michelle. Bautista also named Does 1-10 as potential vehicle operators who might have contributed to the accident. Does 11-20 were employers of the vehicle operators and bore vicarious liability for their employees’ actions. Does 21-30 owned vehicles involved in the incident and allowed their use, while Does 31-40 negligently entrusted their vehicles to others. Further, Does 41-50 acted as agents and employees within their scope of employment, extending liability to their principals.

In the second cause of action for general negligence, Bautista alleged that all defendants breached their duty of care. They failed to maintain, manage, and control the vehicle, leading directly to the collision. Their negligence included poor supervision of vehicle use, improper maintenance practices, and negligent entrustment. This breach directly caused Bautista’s injuries. Their actions violated California Vehicle Code section 21801(a) and other statutes, demonstrating their failure to exercise reasonable care.

Defense

Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner and John Weiner denied all allegations. They claimed that Bautista did not suffer any injuries or damages as alleged, or if he did, they were not caused by them. The defendants raised several affirmative defenses. They argued that Bautista failed to state sufficient facts for a cause of action and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations under Section 335.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. They claimed Bautista assumed the risk of injury by knowingly placing himself in danger and operated his vehicle negligently. The defendants also asserted that Bautista failed to mitigate his damages and did not wear a seatbelt, which contributed to his injuries.

They argued that any medical treatment Bautista sought was unnecessary and not caused by the accident. They challenged the medical billing as excessive and not aligned with California standards. The defendants invoked Civil Code Section 1431.2, limiting their liability for non-economic damages to their share of fault. They also contended that they acted with reasonable care in a sudden emergency and that Bautista’s pre-existing conditions may have contributed to his injuries.

Expert Testimony

Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Samimi testified about all medical issues related to Bautista’s care and treatment following the collision. He explained the nature and extent of the injuries, their cause, and the necessity of medical treatment. He reviewed Bautista’s medical charges and assessed the need for surgical intervention, including costs. Dr. Samimi also provided a diagnosis and prognosis, highlighting potential future complications and the anticipated costs of further treatment.

On the other hand, Mr. Yates provided technical analysis of the collision, addressing the severity of the impact, vehicle dynamics, occupant kinematics, vehicle speed and direction, and visibility factors. He offered additional technical insights within his expertise.

Jury Verdict

The jury found that Michelle Janice Glaser Weiner’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Miguel Ernesto Ortega Bautista. They awarded him total damages of $2,045,371.00 in a Auto vehicle Collision lawsuit, which broke down as follows:

Past Economic Damages:

  • Past medical expenses: $73,871.00

Future Economic Damages:

  • Future medical expenses: $71,500.00

Past Noneconomic Damages:

  • Physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, disfigurement, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress: $900,000.00

Future Noneconomic Damages:

  • Physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, disfigurement, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress: $1,000,000.00

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request