The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

$20 Million Gas Explosion Verdict Upheld Amidst Claims of Attorney Misconduct

Posted on February 5, 2016 by Larry Bodine

home garage fireA California Court of Appeals has upheld a $20 million verdict against the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for a natural gas leak and fire that caused second and third degree burns and brain damage to a man when he lit a cigarette in his rented converted garage room.

Pengxuan “Dean” Diao sued SoCalGas and the owners of the home in which he was renting the converted garage when he was 23-years-old.

A SoCalGas employee restored gas service to the main house after an earthquake shutoff valve stopped gas to the property. While attempting to relight a pilot light, the employee inadvertently opened a gas line leading to the converted garage.

While Diao was sleeping in the converted garage, his bedroom filled with about 300 cubic feet of natural gas.  When he awoke, he lit a cigarette and then saw fire engulf his room.  After running out, he noticed skin falling from his arm and was transported to the hospital.

Gas Company stipulated to negligence

Diao suffered from second and third degree burns on 20 percent of his body including to his face, neck, both upper extremities including hands and digits, right lower back and right lower extremity.

He required several painful treatments, including surgery for debridement and skin grafting.  Plaintiff now has severe hyperpigmentation and areas of severe burn scarring.

Diao sued SoCalGas who stipulated to its negligence as a substantial factor in causing Diao’s harm, but denied its negligence to the extent of harm that Diao claimed.  Initially Diao included the above listed injuries.  At his deposition a year after filing his complaint, Diao commented on memory loss and raised for the first time a “potential brain injury claim.”

Traumatic brain injury claim

Diao’s counsel later submitted the traumatic brain injury as a claim, stating they were unaware of it until after the deposition of Neurologist, Dr. Fisk, whom Diao previously retained.  SoCalGas and the homeowners also hired neurologists to have Diao examined.

The court commented “there were games being played” and that the situation was “all problematic,” but allowed the inclusion of the traumatic brain injury claim and neurologist reports because the initial neurologist report was disclosed and parties were given an opportunity to explore it.

A trial jury returned a verdict in favor of Diao, awarding him $186,718 in past economic damages, $2,600,100 in future economic damages, $8,500,000 in past non-economic damages, and $8,500,000 in future non-economic damages, for a total damages award of $19,786,818.  The jury found SoCalGas 90 percent liable and the homeowners 10 percent liable.

Post-trial motions filed

SoCalGas and the homeowners moved for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict for a new trial claiming discovery abuses related to the traumatic brain injury (TBI) claim and that Diao presented insufficient evidence of TBI.

They also moved for a reduction in the damages award claiming Diao’s counsel made improper arguments that resulted in an excessive and punitive damages award.

See also: Man Burned by Chemical Vapor Explosion Awarded $10M

The Court of appeals in reviewing the trial court record, found that substantial evidence was presented at trial to demonstrate that the gas leak, caused by a SoCalGas employee, caused Diao’s Traumatic brain injury.

SoCalGas argued that while making arguments to the jury, Diao’s counsel referred to SoCalGas as a “bully” and “vilified” SoCalGas by “inviting the jury to punish” them for unproven injuries to other hypothetical victims and referring extensively to its wealth and “unlimited resources” used in the case.

The court found that SoCalGas counsel, “did not make any effort to stop the alleged misconduct with even one objection.”

The court agreed with SoCalGas’s characterization of Diao’s counsel’s actions, writing, “We do not condone, and in fact strongly disapprove, Diao’s counsel’s conduct,” but found that his arguments did not “constitute reversible misconduct.”

The court further found that the damage award was not excessive or disproportionate to other awards given for comparable injuries.  In upholding the verdict amount, the court wrote that in light of Diao’s severe and debilitating injuries, the case must be determined on its own facts, and not in comparison to awards of other cases.

 

The case is Pengxuan Diao v. Southern California Gas Company, case number BC481312 in the Court of Appeal of The State of California, Second Appellate District.

Posted in Blog, Consumer Protection, Personal Injury

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

The proposed settlement reached nearly a year after the catastrophic Surfside building collapse along the South Flo[Read More...]
UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they we[Read More...]
Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]
The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Catholic Diocese is offering a $147 million settlement to sex abuse survivors. This offer comes as a federal ba[Read More...]
Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

A jury in Pensacola, Fla., federal court on Friday ordered 3M to pay $77.5 million to a U.S. Army veteran who said he suffe[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.