Larry Knapp and Howard Knapp obtained a $12,346,721.22 verdict on 10/3/23 in Stanislaus County, after more than three weeks of trial.  This result is the culmination of over five years of litigation with immense contribution from Kelly Balamuth and Balamuth Law, P.C.

JOHN PAINTER v. SEAN AMIN          

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

Trial Dates: 9/12/13 – 10/3/23

 Judge: Honorable Stacy Speiller

Attorney for Plaintiff:

Lawrence M. Knapp #166932
Howard J. Knapp #351103
250 Dorris Place, Stockton, California 95204
Telephone: 209.946.4440
Email: knapp@lmklaw.net
Website: www.stocktoninjurylaw.com

Public Portal to View all Published Case Details

https://stanportal.stanct.org/search

Case No. 9000704

Verdict

  • Economic Damages (stipulated)
  • Past Medical: $93,425.24
  • Past Lost Earnings: $89,367.98
  • Total Economic: $182,793.22
  • Non-Economic Damages
  • Past: $5,000,000
  • Future: $7,163,928.00
  • Total Non-Economic: $12,163,928.00
  • Damages Total: $12,346,721.22
  • 70% of Fault Apportioned to Defendant Sean Amin (more details below)

Expert Witnesses

  • Plaintiff’s:
    • Patrick Kelley, Engineer
    • Dr. Randall Epperson, Neuropsychologist
  • Defendant’s:
    • Michael Jundt, Engineer
    • Dr. Leslie Konkin, Surgeon
    • Dr. Ronald Roberts, Neuropsychologist

Case Summary

Facts:

  • In 2002 Defendant Sean Amin along with his brother Kevin applied for an Owner/Builder permit to build a commercial building in Modesto, California.They listed their glazing company, Western Telesis Corp as the contractor of record.
  • On November 25, 2017, a fixed roof access ladder fell off the side of the commercial building, while Plaintiff John J. Painter, an employee of a Bailey’s Heating and Air an HVAC maintenance company, was on it.
  • As a result of the ladder detaching from the building and his subsequent fall, Mr. Painter suffered severe injuries to his brain, right foot, and right hand. These injuries ultimately required him to undergo three separate surgeries, including an ankle fusion in 2022.
  • Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist expert later concluded that Mr. Painter had suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the fall. He and the defense neuropsychologist expert both also diagnosed Mr. Painter with PTSD.
  • Because the incident occurred during the course and scope of Mr. Painter’s HVAC work, his employer, Bailey’s Heating and Air’s workers compensation insurance carrier, provided benefits for his injuries.
  • As a result, Mr. Painter incurred a worker’s compensation lien >$400,000.00.
  • In 2018, Mr. Painter sued the third-party building owners, Defendant Sean Amin, Kevin Amin, and Western Telesis Inc., for premises liability.
  • In 2023, Mr. Painter dismissed Kevin Amin and Western Telesis Inc. because they were insolvent and lacked coverage.
  • At no time did Defendant Sean Amin or any of the defendants identify who defectively installed the ladder.

Settlement Efforts

  • On December 7, 2018, Mr. Painter served a CCP section 998 Offer to Settle for  $1,800,000.00.  Sean Amin had a $2,000,000.00 policy with Oregon Mutual Insurance.  The offer expired.
  • Before the September 12, 2023, trial date, Defendant Sean Amin served a CCP section 998 Offer to Settle for $800,000.00.  Mr. Painter did not accept the offer.

Defense’s First Motion for Summary Judgment:

  • At this time, Mr. Painter was represented by:
  • Defendant Sean Amin moved for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, contending he was protected by the general rule that the hirer of an independent contractor, such as the HVAC maintenance company in this case, is not liable to the contractor’s employees who are injured on the worksite and covered by workers’ compensation insurance. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 692.) The owner also contended the premises liability exception to this general rule did not apply because he did not actually know, and reasonably could not have known, of the concealed hazardous condition on his premises. (See Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 675.) He asserted a reasonable investigation would not have revealed the ladder had been improperly fastened to the building or was otherwise hazardous and, therefore, he had no constructive knowledge the ladder posed a danger.
  • Judge J. Freeland agreed and granted the summary judgment motion.
  • Mr. Painter appealed.

Plaintiff’s Appeal of Summary Judgment:

  • Mr. Painter contended a triable issue of fact existed about whether Defendant Sean Amin had imputed knowledge of the concealed hazard—specifically, the knowledge of the person who improperly attached the ladder to the side of the building. Painter argued the owner’s separate statement of undisputed material facts and his supporting evidence failed to address, much less negate, the possibility of imputed knowledge.
  • The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that Defendant Sean Amin had failed to carry his initial burden by showing the knowledge element of plaintiff’s premises liability action could not be established and reversed summary judgment.
  • Read the Appellate Opinion here: Painter v. Amin, No. F079239 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2021)
  • After winning on appeal, Kelly Balamuth referred Mr. Painter to The Law Offices of Lawrence M. Knapp.

Defense’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment:

  • The case returned to Stanislaus Superior Court and was reassigned to Judge Stacey Speiller, Defendant Sean Amin moved for summary judgement a second time.
  • The Court denied the second MSJ motion.
  • The Court ruled that there were no new facts that could not have been discovered prior to the filing of the first motion for summary judgment, and no new law.
  • More significantly, upon denying summary judgment, the Court ruled that Privette did not bar Mr. Painter’s claim and triable issues of fact existed regarding the following negligence theories (exceptions to Privette):
    • Concealed Danger,
    • Retained Control,
    • Defective Equipment, and
    • Negligence Per Se
  • Read the Court’s Minute Order here: https://www.stocktoninjurylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/230814-MSJ-Minute-Order.pdf

Trial

Motions in Limine

  • Plaintiffs brought one motion in limine. This motion was granted.
  • Defendants brought THIRTY motions in limine.
  •  Overall, the Court denied Defendant’s most significant motions in limine.

Voir Dire

  • The parties agreed to use the judicial council juror questionnaire with personal injury supplement.
  • We did not request a mini opening in this case.  We made the decision in this case hearing the statement of the case from the court would be more effective for purposes of voir dire.
  • No jurors were dismissed for cause. Plaintiffs and Defendants both used two preemptory challenges.

Opening

  • Opening presentation resources available upon request.

Juror 7 Replacement

  • On the fifth day of trial, juror 7 called in to be excused due to COVID exposure and a positive test result. He was excused.
  • After selecting at random between the three alternates (i.e., Judge Speiller pulled a number from a hat), alternate 1 was empaneled to replace juror 7.

Defendant’s Motion for Nonsuit

  • On the ninth day of trial, the defense filed a Motion for Nonsuit
  • The Court provided us an opportunity to write an opposition during the lunch break, which we completed and submitted later that day.
  • On the tenth day of trial, the Court denied the defense Motion for Nonsuit.

Jury Instructions

  • Defense requested 10 special instructions that were all denied.
  • Plaintiff requested 1 special instruction (CA Govt Code § 818.6) that was denied.
  • We argued and won our most significant CACI liability instructions. Namely, Judge Speiller instructed on Negligence 401, Negligence Per Se 418, Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Unsafe Concealed Conditions 1009A, Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Unsafe Conditions – Defective Equipment 1009D, and Vicarious Liability 3700-3701.
  • The defense won on their Alternative Liability and Apportionment of Fault instructions. Judge Speiller allowed four nonparties to be named on the Special Verdict Form: Kevin Amin, Western Telesis Inc., JV Construction, and Steelco.

Closing

  • Closing presentation resources available upon request.

Jury Verdict

o   Damages Total: $12,346,721.22

Closing Thoughts and Lessons from Lawrence:

It was a great opportunity to try a case with my son as second chair.  Certainly, something I never imagined would happen.  Howard handled much of the MIL argument and Jury Instruction argument doing a superb job.  While Sanchez can pose an obstruction to case specific hearsay, sometimes less is more.  Here, we established that the Neuro-Psych ordered the DTI/MRI, explained what an DTI/MRI is and that the results supported his diagnoses of cognitive brain injury.  This was enough for this jury.

Thank you: Thank you to all the people who provided assistance and advice on this case.  Kelly Balamuth, Daniel Kramer, Davey Turner, Shafeeq Sadiq, Stew Tabak, Scott Sumner, Anthony Label, John Vanucci, Nithin Kumar, and Chris Kreeger