Teen Honor Roll Student Killed In Crash With Tow Truck
On Jan. 25, 2002, plaintiff’s decedent Timothy Orefice, 17, a senior in high school, was pulling out of a Saab car dealership, where he worked part-time, onto Route 1 in Guilford when he was broadsided on the passenger side of his vehicle by a tow truck driven by Jason Secondino. Orefice died instantly.Secondino was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Guilford Texaco Inc. GELCO, a General Electric subsidiary leasing company, was owner and lessor of the tow truck. (The crash occurred before lessor liability was eliminated by statute.)
Pamela Orefice, on behalf of her son, sued Secondino, Guilford Texaco and GELCO for vehicular negligence resulting in the death of her son. The trial was bifurcated at the plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the Secondino was speeding and inattentive, and his employer was negligent and reckless in its hiring, training and supervision practices.
The plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert, testified that Secondino’s speed at the time of the accident was seven to 10 miles over the posted 45-mph speed limit.
The plaintiffs’ truck safety expert, opined that the standard of care for the operator of a commercial motor vehicle required the operator to drive substantially below the posted speed limit at the accident location, because it was immediately beyond an exit ramp from Interstate 95. As a basis for his testimony, the expert drove at the crash location in January 2007 (virtually the same date and time of the crash) in a replica vehicle that was the same year, make and model as the defendant’s vehicle.
Through a series of photographs, the expert showed the shift lever of the truck in each of the five forward speed positions. Comparison of the photos showed that the defendants’ truck was in fifth gear at the time that the police photo was taken, prompting the expert to testify that this corresponded to excessive speed (over 50 mph) and represented a conscious choice by the driver to operate at a high rate of speed.
The expert added that Guilford Texaco failed to check Secondino’s driving background, as well as his criminal and psychiatric background, and that the employer breached the standard of care that governed the hiring, training and supervision of commercial motor vehicle operators, based both on industry standards and standards set forth by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations.
If Guilford Texaco had checked Secondino’s criminal history, it would have found a two-year-old burglary and larceny conviction and a pending case wherein Secondino used a motor vehicle to try to escape from a police officer after a shoplifting incident, argued counsel. The truck safety expert said that a reasonable employer would not have hired under these circumstances.
Counsel introduced evidence about Secondino’s drug treatment program that showed that he missed appointments, refused random drug screens and had questionable urine samples. Dorrity said that Guilford Texaco should have watched Secondino more closely and should have sought information from the treatment program, and that these were red flags. Counsel asserted that Secondino would never have passed the required DOT medical exam, which the employer never required him to take.
Further relying upon photographic evidence, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the tow truck’s lights were off at the time of the accident, thus explaining why Timothy would pull out in front of Secondino.
The defendants denied the allegations.
Counsel for Secondino and Texaco asserted that Secondino had the right of way and that the decedent pulled out in front of the tow-truck driver. Defense counsel relied upon an eyewitness, who saw the tow truck moments before the crash, who testified that the truck did not appear to be speeding.
The defense accident reconstruction expert said that Secondino was traveling 1mph to 9 mph over the speed limit.
The defendants challenged the causal connection between hiring practices and the crash, particularly since Secondino did not have any prior motor vehicle history at the time that he was hired. During his employment, Secondino had only one minor incident (a dent in a parking lot).
At the end of the liability phase of the trial, the jury found that Secondino was 20 percent negligent ; Guilford Texaco was 70 percent negligent ; and that Timothy was 10 percent comparatively negligent. The jury also found that Secondino and Guilford Texaco were both reckless; that Secondino was liable for statutory double damages under Connecticut General Statutes 14-295, and that Guilford Texaco was liable for common law punitive damages (limited in Connecticut to litigation costs).
The case then proceeded to damages.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Timothy had aspirations of becoming an airline pilot like his father. He was an honor roll student and star baseball player who had been accepted to four colleges. Counsel presented a series of still photos and home video taken throughout Timothy’s life, as well as material such as his college application essay. The plaintiffs’ economist testified to a future lost earning capacity of $2.9 million, which was based on earnings projections by Kit Darby, an expert on the earning capacity of commercial airline pilots.
The parties settled for $18.3 million. On behalf of all defendants, Harleysville Insurance paid $6 million, and on behalf of GELCO, Electric Insurance paid an additional $12.3 million.