Adela Ramirez v. Hobart Corporation et al

Filing 275

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs, Adela Ramirez and Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., take nothing; that the action be dismissed on the merits; and that the defendant, ITW Food Equi pment Group LLC, have judgment. The defendant, ITW Food Equipment Group LLC, has agreed to waive its costs, and the plaintiffs, Adela Ramirez and Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., have agreed to forgo any appeal of the judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Adela Ramirez, et al.,

13

Plaintiff ,

14

v.

15

ITW Food Equipment Group LLC,

16

Defendant.

Civil No. 12-CV-10023-AB (AGRx)
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL
VERDICT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

1

This action came on for trial before the Court and the jury on October 9, 2018,

2

in Courtroom 7B of the United States District Court for the Central District of

3

California, the Honorable André Birotte, Jr. presiding. The plaintiffs, Adela Ramirez

4

and Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., were represented by Frank J. D’Oro and David

5

M. Ferrante of Wesierski & Zurek LLP. The defendant, ITW Food Equipment Group

6

LLC, was represented by Jan Dodd of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Andrew Cox

7

of Thompson Hine LLP, and Ralph Campillo of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky

8

and Popeo.

9

A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were

10

sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury

11

was duly instructed by the Court, and the cause was submitted to the jury with

12

directions to return a special verdict. The jury deliberated and thereafter, on October

13

18, 2018, returned to the Court its special verdict on a Special Verdict Form, filed on

14

the docket in this matter as ECF No. 268, which specifically provides as follows:

15
16

*****

17

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

18
19
20

ADELA RAMIREZ’S CLAIM FOR STRICT LIABILITY

21

1.

Did ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC (“ITW FEG”) manufacture,

22

distribute or sell the mixer/grinder on which plaintiff Adela Ramirez was

23

injured?

24

X
__________ Yes ___________ No

25

If your answer to Question 1 is yes, then answer Question 2. If you answered

26

no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date

27

this form.

28
-2-

1

2.

Was the mixer/grinder misused or modified after it left ITW FEG’s

2

possession in a way that was so highly extraordinary that it was not

3

reasonably foreseeable to it?

4

X
__________ Yes ___________ No

5

If your answer to Question 2 is yes, then answer Question 3. If you answered

6

no, skip Question 3 and answer Question 4.

7
8

3.

Was the misuse or modification the sole cause of Adela Ramirez’s harm?
X
__________ Yes ___________ No

9
10

If your answer to Question 3 is no, then answer Question 4. If you answered

11

yes, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date

12

this form.

13
14

4.

Is the mixer/grinder one about which an ordinary consumer can form

15

reasonable minimum safety expectations?

16

__________ Yes ___________ No
X

17

If your answer to Question 4 is yes, then answer Question 5. If your answer is

18

no, skip Question 5 and Answer Question 6.

19
20

5.

Did the mixer/grinder fail to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer

21

would have expected when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable way?

22

X
__________ Yes ___________ No

23

Regardless of your answer to Question 5, answer Question 6.

24
25

6.

Did the risk of the mixer/grinder’s design outweigh the benefits of the

26

design?

27

X
__________ Yes ___________ No

28

If your answer to either Question 5 or Question 6 is yes, then answer Question
-3-

1

7. If you answered no to both Question 5 and Question 6, then, stop here, answer no

2

further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3
4

7.

Was the mixer/grinder’s design a substantial factor in causing harm to Adela

5

Ramirez?

6

X
____________ Yes ____________ No

7

If your answer to Question 7 is yes, then answer Question 8. If you answered

8

no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and

9

date this form.

10
11

DAMAGES

12

8.

13

What are Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Vallarta”) total damages?
a.

Past economic loss

14

Benefits paid to or on behalf of Adela

15

Ramirez:

$ ___________

16
17
18

9.

What are Adela Ramirez’s total damages?
a.

19
20

Past economic loss
Past lost earnings

b.

$ ___________

Future economic loss

21

Future lost earnings

$ ___________

22

Future medical expenses:

$ ___________

23

c.

Past noneconomic loss, including physical

24

pain/mental suffering/loss of enjoyment/

25

disfigurement/physical impairment

26

/inconvenience/grief/anxiety/humiliation/

27

emotional distress:

28

d.

$ ___________

Future noneconomic loss, including
-4-

1

physical pain/mental suffering/loss of

2

enjoyment/ disfigurement/physical

3

impairment /inconvenience/grief/anxiety

4

/humiliation/emotional distress:

6

$ ___________

TOTAL

5

$ ___________

7
8

If Adela Ramirez has proved any damages, answer Question 10. If Adela

9

Ramirez has not proved any damages, then stop here, answer no further questions,

10

and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

11
12

ITW FEG’S CLAIM OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

13

10.

Was Adela Ramirez negligent?

14

________ Yes __________ No

15

If your answer to Question 10 is yes, then answer Question 11. If you

16

answered no, go to Question 12.

17
18

11.

Was Adela Ramirez’s negligence a substantial factor in causing her harm?

19

___________ Yes ___________ No

20

Regardless of your answer to Question 11, answer Question 12.

21
22

12.

Was Vallarta negligent?

23

____________ Yes ____________ No

24

If your answer to Question 12 is yes, then answer Question 13. If you

25

answered no, go to Question 14.

26
27
28

13.

Was Vallarta’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to Adela
Ramirez?
-5-

1
2

____________ Yes _________ No
Now answer Question 14.

3
4
5

14.

What percentage of responsibility for Adela Ramirez’s harm do you assign
to:

6

ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC:

_____%

7

VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.:

_____%

8

ADELA RAMIREZ:

_____%

9

TOTAL

100%

10
11

Signed:

12
13
14

Date:

/s/ Presiding Juror
Presiding Juror

10/18/18

After the verdict form has been signed, notify the clerk that you are ready to
present your verdict in the courtroom.

15

*****

16
17

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs,

18

Adela Ramirez and Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., take nothing; that the action be

19

dismissed on the merits; and that the defendant, ITW Food Equipment Group LLC,

20

have judgment. The defendant, ITW Food Equipment Group LLC, has agreed to

21

waive its costs, and the plaintiffs, Adela Ramirez and Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc.,

22

have agreed to forgo any appeal of the judgment.

23
24
25
26

Dated:

12/20/2018

The Honorable André Birotte Jr.
e

27
28
-6-