On May 4, 2001, plaintiff Joseph Provenza, 13, was riding his motocross bike in a desert area in Pahrump, Nev., while wearing specialty motocross clothing. His jersey was made of cotton and the pants were nylon, which were manufactured by Gear Racewear, Inc.Provenza alleged that while he was riding, 2.85 gallons of gasoline leaked from his bike and ignited. Part of his clothes caught fire and continued to burn until his clothing was almost entirely consumed by flames. He suffered third-degree burns to 90 percent of his body.Provenza and his parents sued clothing distributor LeMans Corp., Janesville, Wis.; Yamaha Motor Co.; and Gear Racewear on a products liability theory (breach of warranty). Gear Racewear settled for a confidential amount prior to trial, and Yamaha was involuntarily dismissed before trial.
The case proceeded to trial on the theory that the clothing enhanced the burns beyond what Provenza would have suffered had he been wearing clothing made from fire-retardant or flame resistant materials. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that LeMans advertised the Gear Racewear clothing as fire-retardant, and the clothing burned beyond what he would have suffered (first-degree, second-degree burns) had he been wearing clothing made from fire-retardant or flame-resistant materials. After conducting flammability testing on exemplar clothing, Gordon Damant, the plaintiffs’ chemistry expert, testified that the clothing distributed by the defendant was unreasonably dangerous. This opinion was shared by Eldon Knuth, the plaintiffs’ fire-protection engineer. Alan Dimick, the plaintiffs’ burn medicine expert, testified that all of Provenza’s third-degree burns were caused by clothing which accelerated the burning, and not by the gasoline.
LeMans denied the allegations.
Defense counsel contended that the clothing was not advertised as fire-retardant, and that the burns were not caused by the clothing but by the gasoline fire. Joseph Moylan, the defense’s medical burn expert, testified via video that all of Provenza’s burns were not enhanced by the nature of the clothing, and that his burns were caused by the burning gasoline.
Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez excluded evidence by the defense that Provenza’s father and father’s friend wrapped a piece of metal wire around the bike’s spark plug prior to May 4.
Bruce LeBlanc, the defense’s textiles expert, conducted a test by spilling a fraction of the 2.85 gasoline involved in the accident on Nomex, a DuPont-trademarked flame-resistant material, in order to see if a fire-retardant jersey would have protected Provenza. LeBlanc testified that the Nomex burnt just as severely and would not have protected Provenza if he was wearing the Nomex material during the accident.
Defense expert Russell Darnell, a former motocross champion, testified about his years of teaching students the warnings and dangers associated with the sport, including the use of proper impact-protection wear. However, Darnell was barred from testifying that, in his years of experience, he did not teach students about the possibility of fire hazards associated with motocross because he never heard of it occurring.
Provenza was flown to University Medical Center in Las Vegas for third-degree burns to more than 90 percent of his body, for respiratory failure and for convulsions. He was on prolonged ventilator support and received a tracheostomy. On July 11, Provenza was transferred to Shriners Hospital in Sacramento for treatment through Nov. 28. Following discharge, Joseph underwent 76 skin surgeries over six years, including split thickness, autograft, homograft, patient’s cultured skin and Integra (bovine matrix) grafts. He suffered complications that included “skin” breakdowns caused by peripheral neuropathy, ischemia and necrosis of the digits in both hands and feet, which required surgical interventions and z-plasty revisions of scar contractures.
Developing ongoing osteomyelitis of the feet and toes, Provenza underwent an amputation of the right great toe and right second toe; partial amputation of the right middle toe, and amputation of the right fifth toe and fifth metatarsal. His left third, fourth and fifth toes and lateral foot were also amputated.
Provenza developed a valgus deformity and a bilateral drop foot and osteoporosis of the bones of his feet. Both of his hands sustained contractures, which dislocated the joints of the index and ring fingers. Provenza underwent amputation and fusion of the joints of his index and middle fingers and partial amputation of his small finger. He developed partial hearing loss secondary to massive and continued use of antibiotics to treat wound infections and episodes of cellulitis.
William Zamboni, the plaintiffs’ treating burn physician, testified that Provenza was the most badly injured burn victim who lived in the state of Nevada. Provenza sought $4,266,600 for past medical expenses and $7,115,370 for future medical expenses. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Provenza would not be able to live independently and that his parents would have to care for him for the rest of his life. He sought $28 million in past and future pain and suffering and past and future disfigurement. Lewis Vierling, plaintiffs’ vocational rehabilitation expert, testified that Provenza was unemployable. He sought $2,029,482 for future lost earnings. Economist Patrick Mason calculated the plaintiff’s damages.
The jury rendered a plaintiff’s verdict and awarded $41,519,423.
| Michael Provenza and Kim Page$107,971 Personal Injury: value of past home nursing care
Joseph Provenza
$4,266,600 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost
$7,115,370 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost
$2,029,482 Personal Injury: FutureLostEarningsCapability
$17,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering
$11,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering
|
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a memorandum of costs in the sum of $1,302,593. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to LeMans Corp.’s rejection of pre-trial offer of judgment for $967,634. On May 17, 2007, Continental Casualty Co. and National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, LeMans Corp.’s insurers, filed suit against LeMans for declaratory relief. The insurance companies requested a judicial finding that they have “no obligation to indemnify LeMans for any portion.