Rental Truck Rolled Over Plaintiff, Who Had To Undergo 14 Surgeries
On Sept. 20, 2006, plaintiff Talmadge Waldrip, 73, was helping his daughter, plaintiff Ann Boyd, move after her divorce. Boyd had rented a 26-foot U-Haul “Jumbo Hauler” truck from Jot-’Em Down, a store in Mesquite.
Boyd did not know how to drive a standard transmission, but her father did. He took some of Boyd’s belongings to a warehouse he owned in Forney. There, he stepped out of the truck cab on an uphill road and fell, and the truck rolled backward over him.
Waldrip, his wife, and their two adult daughters sued U-Haul International Inc., operating as U-Haul and U-Haul Co. of Arizona; U-Haul Co. of Texas; and East Fork Enterprises Inc., operating as Jot-’Em Down, for failing to maintain the truck. They further alleged that East Fork was an agent of the U-Haul defendants and U-Haul Co. of Texas was an agent of U-Haul International. Against the U-Haul defendants, the plaintiffs also alleged gross negligence.
According to Waldrip, he turned off the engine, put the stickshift into first gear, and set the parking brake. He then stepped out of the truck. He said that it started to roll backward, knocked him down, and rolled over him.
The plaintiffs claimed that the parking brake shoe had worn away completely and putting the gear stick in first had the same effect as putting it in neutral.
According to the plaintiffs, the U-Haul defendants ignored safety issues and had conflicting and poorly managed inspection policies and inadequate fleet replacement and repair practices.
The truck was 18 years old and had about 234,000 miles. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the U-Haul defendants were aware of the truck’s parking-brake problem; that the truck’s state inspection sticker was expired; and that, although the truck had a July 2006 U-Haul safety-check sticker, this check was performed inadequately, if at all. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the person who purportedly performed it lacked basic knowledge.
The truck had about 14 renters since that inspection date. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the parking brake failed for half of them.
The plaintiffs also argued that U-Haul trucks in Canada had safety problems that were exposed in 2005 and 2006, and that U-Haul shipped unsafe trucks, including this one, from there to the U.S. and kept renting them.
The defense denied that its trucks in the U.S. or Canada were unsafe or that it shipped unsafe trucks from Canada to the U.S. The U-Haul defendants’ CEO testified that their trucks’ safety is a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.
According to defense counsel, only two renters since the July 2006 safety check testified that the parking brake failed for them, and none of the renters since the safety check reported any truck problem to U-Haul or the dealer.
The defense argued that some renter had likely left the parking brake on and worn down the brake shoe, but that it would be difficult to detect when it occurred without checking after every single rental, and that there was no evidence that U-Haul was–or reasonably should have been–aware of a parking brake problem before the accident.
Pretrial, the defense filed motions asserting spoliation of evidence and improper influence of nonparty witnesses, but these motions were denied.
Waldrip fell with his legs to either side of the front left tire, which then rolled over his groin, crushing his pelvis and part of his lumbar spine, rupturing his bladder, and degloving his right leg. He was allegedly dragged about 40 feet. He underwent emergency surgery to prevent bleeding to death and underwent debridement and skin grafts to his leg. He developed gangrene and decubitus ulcers, which also required surgery. He underwent a colostomy and has a permanent colostomy tube and feeding tube. He also underwent removal of 75 percent of the L4-5 disc. He underwent 14 operations total.
He cannot walk and undergoes rehabilitation therapy for his legs three times a week. Every six months, he sees his family doctor and undergoes urology treatments. He requires round-the-clock care; he must be turned approximately every hour, so that decubitus ulcers do not recur. He has no bowel control or bladder control.
Before the accident, according to his family doctor of 12 years, Waldrip’s health for his age was in the top 1 percent of the general population. He has several grandchildren he would take fishing. He had retired from the antique business, but testified that he had planned to go back into it and open his own store.
Waldrip claimed past medical bills of $1,321,065.85; future medical bills; and past and future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, physical impairment, and disfigurement. His wife and daughters–Bernice Waldrip, Boyd and Dinah Simington–claimed past and future loss of spousal and parental consortium. From the U-Haul defendants, Waldrip also sought punitive damages.
During voir dire, the plaintiffs’ attorneys talked about $100 million in total damages, and during closing argument, they asked for $60 million.
The defense reported that there was no paralysis, and that Waldrip’s inability to walk stemmed from pelvic injuries and leg atrophy.
The jury found that only the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the occurrence and assigned liability as follows: U-Haul International, 50 percent; U-Haul Co. of Texas, 49 percent; and East Fork Enterprises, 1 percent.
The jury also found that East Fork’s negligence was in furtherance of a mission for and subject to control by U-Haul Co. of Texas; that U-Haul Co. of Texas’s negligence was in furtherance of a mission for and subject to control by U-Haul International; and that U-Haul International authorized or ratified U-Haul Co. of Texas’s delegation of its mission to East Fork.
The jury also found that the U-Haul defendants were grossly negligent.
The plaintiffs’ actual damages were $18,505,000 for Waldrip, $2.6 million for his wife, and $160,000 for each daughter, the jury found. The jury also assessed punitives of $21 million against U-Haul Co. of Texas and $42 million against U-Haul International in favor of Waldrip, bringing the total award to $84,425,000.
The deliberations took place on two days.
Ann Boyd
$100,000 Personal Injury: Past Loss Of Consortium
$60,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Consortium
Dinah Simington
$100,000 Personal Injury: Past Loss Of Consortium
$60,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Consortium
Bernice Waldrip
$1,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Loss Of Consortium
$1,600,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Consortium
Talmadge Waldrip
$1,400,000 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost
$3,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost
$2,500,000 Personal Injury: Past Physical Impairment
$5,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Physical Impairment
$170,000 Personal Injury: Past Lost Earnings Capability
$935,000 Personal Injury: FutureLostEarningsCapability
$1,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering
$1,500,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering
$2,500,000 Personal Injury: Past Disfigurement
$500,000 Personal Injury: Future Disfigurement
$21,000,000 Personal Injury: punitive damages against U-Haul Co. of Texas
$42,000,000 Personal Injury: punitive damages against U-Haul International