Blog Topic

Changing the Law for the Better: Making Sure that Parents Are Responsible for their Children's Poor Driving
Posted by: David Abney
July 12, 2011

Knapp & Roberts does not just help its own clients. Without charge, Knapp & Roberts time and effort to improving the law for all people who suffer injuries through the fault of others. One of our law firm's most recent successes in protecting the rights of injury victims came through the Arizona Supreme Court's April 5, 2011 opinion in the case of Young v. Beck.

In that case, parents let their 17-year-old son drive their sport-utility vehicle, although the son was immature and a miserable driver. After enough poor driving, the parents eventually told their son that he could use the SUV-but only if he promised to never use it to drive his friends around. Naturally, the son then took the SUV and drove around with several friends throwing eggs at houses and parked cars. The son soon crashed the SUV into a car. The crash badly injured the car's driver.

The son was not just immature, he was broke. So the injured driver sued the son's parents, hoping to recover money for his injuries from their insurance policy. The injured driver argued that the son's parents were liable for the son's negligent driving under an old legal doctrine called the "family-purpose doctrine." It's a fancy name for a simple idea: If parents let their child drive the family car, the parents are liable if the child drives negligently and caused a crash. The parents in the Young case argued that the Arizona Supreme Court should abandon the "family-purpose doctrine" and hold the son-and only the son-responsible for the collision that he had caused.

Knapp & Roberts invested time and effort in supporting the appellate briefs of the injured driver. The time and effort paid off when the Arizona Supreme Court refused to abandon the "family-purpose doctrine." The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the son's parents were responsible for the consequences of their son's poor driving. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision may eventually help one of Knapp & Roberts's own clients. But even if that never happens, injured people across Arizona will benefit. And that is what really matters.

Permalink

Knapp & Roberts Wins a Hard-Fought, Landmark Trial for a Special-Needs Choking Victim
Posted by: David Abney
March 14, 2011

Knapp & Roberts is pleased and honored to announce a hard-fought, important legal victory that is both a good result for our client and one that will help protect other individuals with special needs from group-home abuse and neglect.

On February 11, 2011, a Maricopa County Superior Court jury awarded damages of $307,250 for a 51-year-old developmentally disabled group home resident who choked on a burrito during dinner. The group home did not follow his Individual Support Plan, which required cutting his solid food before serving it to him. Our client had no teeth and had a history of choking on whole food items.

The jury made the award against the group home, against the government agencies that had funded and supervised that group home, and against the State of Arizona. The jury found that the defendants had abused or neglected our client within the meaning of the Arizona Adult Protective Services Act.

Sadly, our client suffered excruciating pain as he choked to death. Although he unfortunately died as a result of the choking incident, we could not bring any claim for wrongful death since he did not have any surviving statutory beneficiaries. The jury could only consider his tremendous pain while choking.

Gary Baroldy -- the man killed by the group-home abuse or neglect -- was a 51-year-old man with profound developmental disabilities and no teeth. He had no concept of safety or of danger. His impulsivity and cognitive skills were at an infant's level. He could not speak and could only communicate with a few basic gestures. Gary was utterly dependent on his caregivers to supervise and protect him at all times. That was especially true during meals, when he required constant one-on-one supervision.

Because of his impulsivity, lack of safety awareness, and known tendency to choke on solid food, his caregivers knew that all of his solid food had to be cut into small, dime-sized pieces. Indeed, Gary had choked on uncut food to the point of near-fatal asphyxiation at least three times before he choked to death on June 17, 2007. The group-home caregivers knew about each incident. And so did the government agencies in charge of funding and supervising Gary's group-home care. Gary's Behavior Plan and his Individual Service Plan warned his caregivers to cut up his food and to watch him one-on-one when he ate.

Instead of doing that, however, on June 17, 2009, his primary caregiver served him with an uncut bean burrito. Gary began eating the uncut burrito and immediately started choking. His caregiver dithered while Gary was fighting to breathe -- fighting to live. The primary caregiver failed to perform the Heimlich maneuver, failed to perform CPR, and then called 911 when it was too late to matter. The jury was shocked by the deliberate indifference of the caregiver to the need to keep uncut whole food away from Gary. This was, as their verdict proved, an easily preventable tragedy.

Knapp & Roberts had to overcome a complete denial of responsibility by the group home, by two private defense law firms, and by the Office of the Arizona Attorney General. The defendants were the group-home management company (Portable Practical Education Preparation, Inc.), the Division of Developmental Disabilities, the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and the State of Arizona.

The Plaintiff was the Estate of Gary Baroldy. The personal representative who guided the Estate during the trial was Gary's sister and guardian, Brenda Davis. Ms. Davis had done everything humanly possible to get the caregivers to cut up Gary's food and to safeguard him one-on-one when he ate. She made sure that there were written instructions and even took the primary caregivers to restaurants to show them precisely how to cut up Gary's food and how to sit next to him and make sure that he was eating safely. After all that Ms. Davis had done to check on Gary regularly and to protect him, the jurors were stunned that the defense lawyers had subjected Ms. Davis to a brutal, unrelenting, nine-hour cross-examination. At the end of the case, Ms. Davis could only say what she had said all along, "What more could I have done to protect my brother?"

In post-verdict discussions with the jurors, one of the first things that the jurors said was that they wanted to award punitive damages as well. (The trial judge had decided, on technical grounds, not to let the jury award punitive damages. That was a legal error that Knapp & Roberts will ask the court of appeals to correct.)

This victory for Gary Baroldy is a landmark, lasting victory for all people who have special needs and must depend on others for their safety and well-being. Developmentally disabled people, and their families, deserve respect, protection, and proper care. If caregivers, and the government agencies that fund and supervise them, have abused or neglected your loved one, let us know how we can help.

Permalink