'Calamity Ensued': Broward Lawyer Wins $1.6 Million Verdict For Client With Crushed Foot
A jury sided with Sam Coffey of Coffey Trial Law in Fort Lauderdale, who argued that his client's foot would never have been crushed if a garbage collector had operated his equipment safely.
August 31, 2018 at 11:33 AM
6 minute read
Samuel A. Coffey of Coffey Trial Law in Fort Lauderdale scored a more than $1.6 million verdict for 37-year-old laborer Jose Santillan and his wife, Nubia Katherine Rodriguez, after a tractor operator dropped a loading bucket onto Santillan's foot.
“(Santillan) has a lifetime of medical care ahead of him,” Coffey said.
Nov. 20, 2015, was bulk trash pickup day in Fort Lauderdale, a monthly service allowing residents to dispose of up to 10 cubic yards of waste, including construction debris.
Trash collectors were poised with their tractors, or “front-end loaders,” complete with heavy-duty buckets for scooping up materials like asphalt, debris, dirt and snow.
Tractor operator Edwine Prudent was collecting trash, while Santillan and his father-in-law disposed of broken tile, left over from a residential remodel they'd performed for their small, family-owned business, Rodriguez Home Design.
Then, as Coffey put it, “calamity ensued.”
Prudent gestured toward the pair to put their debris in his front-end loader bucket, and he'd take it from there.
“But the two struggled to get the can of debris into the front-end loader bucket, and the gentleman on the loader made the unilateral decision to lower the bucket,” Coffey said.
Prudent claimed he was trying to help Santillan out, which was “ironic,” in Coffey's mind, since he'd dropped the bucket on his client's foot, breaking three metatarsal bones.
The way Coffey saw it, lowering the bucket was a spontaneous choice, not an obligation.
“If you're dealing with the life, health and safety of individuals, you should always do things the more safe way as opposed to the less safe way,” Coffey.
Though Prudent caused the accident, his employer, the City of Fort Lauderdale, bore the ultimate responsibility.
Michael T. Burke of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman in Fort Lauderdale represented the city, which denied that Prudent was solely to blame.
Burke did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
In Santillan's amended complaint, filed Mar. 1, 2017, Coffey argued that Prudent had violated basic health and safety rules by using the loader with Santillan and his father in close proximity.
“There's a 6-foot rule,” Coffey said. “If he turned the machine off when someone was within 6 feet of it, the man's foot never would have been injured.”
On top of that, the plaintiff alleged Prudent failed to alert anyone before making the move.
“If you need to make a change or need to do something, warn people. This gentleman didn't warn anybody because he was in an enclosed glass box on top of the front loader and he had headphones in at the same time,” Coffey said.
Read the verdict:
The city sought to hold the plaintiff responsible for his injury.
“The defense argued that Mr. Santillan's father-in-law didn't get his foot crushed, so Mr. Santillan must have been doing something wrong himself,” Coffey said.
The jury awarded all the damages the defense had requested. But it also found that Santillon was 25 percent at fault, and reduced the award accordingly.
Santillan chose not to claim past or future wages, but asked that his past and future medical bills be covered. His wife also claimed loss of consortium because of how Santillan's injuries affected their marriage. Santillan's injuries and subsequent surgeries kept him out of work for several months, and left him unable to do simple things with his family, like take a walk.
To bolster his case, Coffey brought in Dr. Arthur Segall, a surgeon at Segall Foot and Ankle Inc. in Fort Lauderdale to explain the two procedures he performed on Santillan.
The prognosis? Arthritis.
“Not possibly. Probably,” Coffey said.
Dr. Segall had to implement a series of plates and screws to heal the foot. In the second surgery, he removed some of the screws.
“(Santillan) will probably need another surgery to fuse his midfoot, and may also need an ankle fusion when he develops enough arthritis,” Coffey said.
Santillan has multiple surgery scars on his foot and has gone up a shoe size.
“His foot's never going to be like it was before, and he's going to pay a lifetime for the injuries caused by the negligence of this operator who, frankly, wasn't paying attention to the safety rules, admitted so on the stand, and was in an enclosed glass box wearing headphones,” Coffey said.
The day before the trial, the city made its first offer to Santillan. But $75,000 was too low for Santillan, who was willing to settle for $200,000.
“Because of that, we may be entitled to get attorney fees against them under a fee-shifting statute called proposal for settlement,” Coffey said.
At trial, Coffey explained the impact of Santillan's injuries to the jury.
“On the morning of closing argument, I had gone out with my wife and my dog for a walk. I had a nice, long healthy walk, exercised, spent some time with my spouse, spent some time with my dog. That's the kind of thing that Mr. Santillan can't do anymore,” Coffey said.
Santillan has since switched his day job, and now installs PVC piping for pools and fountains.
“This guy's not a complainer,” Coffey said. “He's a hard worker and he provides for his family. Until now, he kind of suffered in silence.”
Case: Jose Santillan and Nubia Katherine Rodriguez vs. The City of Fort Lauderdale
Case No.: CACE-16-010680 DIV 05
Description: Personal injury involving a crushed foot
Filing Date: June 9, 2016
Verdict Date: Aug. 16, 2018
Judge: Broward Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Levenson
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Samuel A. Coffey, Coffey Trial Law, Fort Lauderdale
Defendant's Attorney: Michael T. Burke, Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, Fort Lauderdale.
Verdict: $1,606,967.57
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Tampa Jury Returns $5.8M Verdict Against Insurer Who Denied Coverage
2 minute readEven the Chief Judge Noted the Cost of This Broward Case
Marriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Increase in Artificial Intelligence-Related Securities Class Actions
- 2Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
- 3Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
- 4Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
- 5What Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250