Teen Injured by Truck Awarded $15 Million Represented by the Law Offices of Ledger & Associates in conjunction with The Law Offices of Panish Shea & Boyle

LOS ANGELES - A Superior Court jury has awarded more than $15 million in compensatory damages to a teenager who suffered permanent brain injuries after his mother's car was struck by a Southern California Gas Co. truck in 2005.

Thursday's verdict followed an admission of liability from the utility provider, which asked the jury to return with a payout well below eight figures. Charlotte Tilton and Kyle Tilton v. Southern California Gas Company, BC367753 (L.A. Super. Ct., May 1, 2008).

Kyle Tilton, now 17, was a passenger in the family's Chrysler sedan when it was hit by a gas company-owned pickup truck.

Tilton's mother was making a left turn along state Route 62, in Twentynine Palms, when the truck's driver ran a red light and hit the passenger side of her vehicle.

Gas company employee Darryl Whitley admitted fault for the accident, saying he had not noticed the light change.

Tilton, then 14, was struck in the head by a door frame and pushed against a console. Almost half of his body was compressed.

"It impacted right where he was sitting. It was like being in a trash compactor," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Brian Panish, of Panish, Shea & Boyle. "It was a very horrific impact."

Tilton was comatose for 24 hours and spent nine days in the hospital. He was diagnosed with a permanent frontal-lobe brain injury, which left him cognitively disabled with impaired judgement and an inability to regulate his moods, his lawyers said.

He also retained a drooping left eye, partial face paralysis and a six-inch scar on his head.

Tilton was an active teenager before the accident, earning As and Bs in school and enjoying dirt biking, skateboarding and repairing bicycles. He testified at trial that his personality "completely changed" after the accident.

He said he suffers from depression, lacks ambition and can no longer engage in many physical activities. He also reportedly suffers from fatigue, anxiety and speech difficulties. "He's just much slower processing all functions - if he's holding something in two hands, he will drop one thing," Panish said.

With liability in the crash established, damages became the main issue at trial.

Lawyers for Sempra Energy/OGC, which owns Southern California Gas Co., argued Tilton should be owed around $1 million for past and future pain and suffering, plus the cost of three years of future care. They ascribed $50,000 for lost future wages.

But the Los Angeles jury came back with damages totaling almost $15.1 million, including $10 million in past and future pain and suffering, $3.57 million in future medical expenses and $1 million in future loss of earnings.

Sempra Energy/OGC lawyer, Marlin Howes, could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday, though a spokeswoman said the company accepted responsibility for the "tragedy."

Expecting a payout, Tilton recently checked into a live-in physical rehabilitation facility, where he is undergoing daily therapy and trying to complete his high school education, Panish said.

"Kyle has a long way to go in his recovery, but we have worked hard to ensure that he is getting the best brain injury rehabilitation available," Panish said. "With this verdict, Kyle will be able to continue his treatment in the hopes that he can further recover and improve the quality of his life."



MILITARY: Acquitted former Marine recalls fear in Fallujah

A former Camp Pendleton Marine acquitted last week in the slaying of four detainees during a 2004 battle for the city of Fallujah, Iraq, says his most vivid memory of those days was "constant fear."

"We were running out of ammo and we weren't able to clear every house," Jose L. Nazario Jr. said Friday, one day after a U.S. District Court civilian jury declared him not guilty of manslaughter and related charges in the first-ever trial of its kind. "We were moving past buildings and structures where we could have been ambushed at any time."

It was that environment that Nazario confronted on the first of what would be 10 straight days of combat. But it would be that first day, his first time in combat, that would come back to haunt Nazario two years later.

The 28-year-old former sergeant from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment was indicted by a federal grand jury last year, accused of killing two of the detainees his squad encountered in a home they searched and directing junior Marines to kill two others.

He is the first former service member to be tried under the Military Extraterritorial Judicial Act authorized by Congress eight years ago. A provision allows federal prosecutions of people out of the military when accusations arise against them for actions during their active-duty years.

But the Nazario case was rife with problems for prosecutors. The government had no bodies, no names to attach to the dead, no complaining witnesses and no physical evidence of any kind.

What decision-makers in the Justice Department did have were statements from squad members that the detainees did not pose a threat when they were shot.

Faced with those statements, deciding to prosecute Nazario was based more on the moral and ethical imperative than overwhelming evidence, according to those who practice and study military law.

Civilian jurors

One military law expert said Nazario's case was exactly what the Military Extraterritorial Judicial Act was intended to cover.

"He could not be prosecuted in a military court-martial, so this was the only available option and it was perfectly appropriate for a civilian jury to hear the case," said Scott Silliman, a former U.S. Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor who heads its Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

"Regardless of the verdict, the law worked in this case because an alleged crime was tried in court and a decision was reached."

Without the law, Nazario could not have been prosecuted by any court and that was not in the best interest of justice, he said.

Going into the case, Nazario's attorneys contended it was an inappropriate matter for a civilian jury. Without understanding the exigencies of the battlefield and the pressures troops faced, civilian jurors lacked the proper context, they argued.

On Friday, one of those attorneys reiterated that stance.

"The law has a devastating impact because the message it sends to troops is that you'd better be right because we are going to Monday-morning quarterback you for the rest of your life," said Joseph Preis, a former Marine who along with three other attorneys represented Nazario free of charge.

"We should be up front with recruits now and tell them we are going to give you a weapon, put you through hell and you better be aware that we are going to review every one of your actions in war and you could be charged with a crime years from now."

Preis said Nazario's legal team is considering asking Congress to amend the act so the military would be the only entity that can bring cases against former service members.

"It needs to be kept out of the civilian courts because it's just too difficult for jurors lacking military experience to be put in that position," Preis said.

Silliman disagreed.

"There just aren't going to be very many cases like Nazario's," he said during a telephone interview. "The law worked as it was intended."

'Too far'

Bing West, a former Marine officer who has written three books on the Iraq war, including the just-released "The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics and the Endgame in Iraq," said the Nazario case and similar ones brought against troops from Camp Pendleton in recent months represent a disturbing trend.

"We have gone entirely too far," said West, a former assistant secretary of defense. "We are attempting to place the same requirements on our soldiers and Marines in war that we place on police officers in the U.S. You simply cannot fight a major war that way."

The prosecutions, most of which have ended in withdrawal or dismissal of charges or outright acquittals such as Nazario's, are having an effect on the battlefield, said West, who recently returned from Iraq.

"It's leading to serious skepticism on the part of those who have to fight," he said during a telephone interview Friday. "When you get onto the battlefield and there are thousands of enemy fighters not wearing any uniform, you can't apply the same standards that we expect of our police forces.

"It seems like we want our troops to issue Miranda warnings and then collect and bag evidence in order to show what they did was proper."

Carlsbad attorney David Brahms, a former Marine general who once was the service's top legal adviser, said he sees a larger message in the Nazario verdict.

"The mothers of America spoke," he said of the nine women on the panel, one of whom told reporters she and other jurors did not think it was right for civilians to be deciding Nazario's fate. "They said, 'We don't think our boys should be put in jeopardy this way.' "

More legal troubles?

In a highly emotional and unusual aftermath of the verdict, several jurors walked from the jury room moments after their verdict was announced into the courtroom to shake Nazario's hand and express their support to his mother.

"They said, 'God bless you, you've got your life back and thank you for serving our country," Nazario said.

Although acquitted in the manslaughter trial, Nazario's legal troubles may not be over. The two members of the squad he was leading when the slayings occurred face trials at Camp Pendleton on charges of murder and dereliction of duty. While Nazario faced the possibility of 10 years or more in prison, the men he led face a possible life prison term.

Those men, Sgts. Ryan Weemer and Jermaine Nelson, defied a subpoena ordering them to testify at Nazario's trial and were cited by U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson with criminal contempt of court. They face a Sept. 29 hearing that will determine if that finding stands and what punishment they may face.

Now, legal experts say they fully expect Marine Corps prosecutors will subpoena Nazario and the Justice Department will issue him an immunity grant so that anything he might say cannot result in new charges against him. If he is subpoenaed, but refuses to testify, the experts say he could be held in contempt in federal court.

Unlike Nazario, Nelson and Weemer will have their cases heard by a military jury. And unlike in federal court where a unanimous decision was required of the 12 jurors, two-thirds of a military panel agreeing on guilt or innocence is sufficient to reach a verdict.

For at least a few hours on Friday, none of that much mattered for Nazario, a married father of a 2-year-old child. He was attending a celebration at his attorneys' Orange County offices and looking forward to being reunited with his wife and son in New York.

"I'm just looking forward to getting home and carrying on with my life," he said.

Attorney Emery Ledger stated, “Mr. Nazario has been vindicated, now this “True American Hero” can move on with his life; Justice has been served.”