. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.



Los Angeles County, CA

In this negligence matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant security company was negligent in failing to properly vet and train a security guard. The defendant’s guard ruthlessly beat the plaintiff in the head with a baton and smashed his head several times into the concrete when he came to the aid of his nephew during a bar fight. As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff suffered tremendous brain damage which included requiring the removal of a part of his brain and skull. The plaintiff now suffers from a significant physical deformity as part of his skull is missing. The defendant denied the allegations maintaining that it was mutual combat. The defendant also disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

The 43-year-old male plaintiff, a painter by trade, went with his two nephews and his brother to a bar on April 19, ________ in Los Angeles. The plaintiff and his companions had previously frequented this establishment with no problems. During the course of the evening, an altercation broke out between the plaintiff’s one nephew and a security guard. The security guard knocked the plaintiff’s nephew to the ground and struck him in the head with his baton. The plaintiff came to the aid of his nephew and in an effort to get the security guard off of the young man; he pushed the guard away from his nephew. Suddenly, the security guard began to strike the plaintiff with the baton, hitting him multiple times with his baton in the head while they were still inside the bar.

The defendant’s security guard then pushed the plaintiff out into the street where he struck him two more times in the head with the baton. As a result of the multiple blows to the head, the plaintiff fell onto the concrete sidewalk. While the plaintiff was on the ground, defenseless, the security guard then proceeded to kick him approximately six times once again in the plaintiff’s head. A bar employee who was leaving work then observed the guard take the plaintiff by the head and smash the plaintiff’s head into the concrete, rendering him unconscious. The witness testified that even after the plaintiff was clearly unconscious, the defendant’s guard proceeded to smash his head into the concrete several more times.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with subdural hematomas on the left and right side of his head, with the injuries being much worse on the left side. He also suffered right and left frontal contusions, temporal contusions and global cerebral edema. He underwent a left hemicraniectomy with evacuation of the subdural hematoma. He suffered partial thrombosis to his right common femoral and popliteal veins. He was hospitalized from April 20th to May 5th as a result of his injuries. He suffered profound, permanent and irreversible brain damage as a result of the defendant’s guard’s actions. He is presently severely deformed with a significant portion of his skull and brain missing.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant security company and the bar alleging negligence. The plaintiff alleged that defendant security company was negligent in its hiring, training and supervision of its employee. The plaintiff also alleged negligence per se due to the defendant’s failure to comply with two California laws regarding the employment of security guards. Investigation disclosed that the defendant employee was not legally entitled to work as a security guard having provided false information to the defendant, who failed to verify the guard’s credentials prior to hiring him. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the defendant company failed to properly train or supervise the guard.

The matter proceeded to trial. The plaintiff provided evidence regarding the fact that the guard who beat the plaintiff had only been employed by the defendant company for approximately six months. At the time of his employment, the guard provided the defendant with a guard card supposedly issued by the state of California, which would have enabled him to work as a security guard. Investigation disclosed that the card was not a valid card; the number on it actually belonged to an individual named Isabel De La Torre. Moreover, the defendant company was required under California law to provide its employees with 32 hours of security guard training within six months of employment. The evidence revealed that the defendant company failed to comply with this law.

The matter proceeded to trial over a period of nine days.At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for approximately three hours and returned its unanimous verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $________ which consisted of: $________ in past lost earnings; $________ in past medical expenses; $________ in other economic loss; $________ in future medical damages; $________ in future economic loss; $________ in past non-economic loss and $________ in future non-economic loss.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.