 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Weckman v. Weckman6/20/2000
A jury found appellant Randall Weckman negligent in a boating accident. He challenges the district court's denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denial of his motion for a new trial on damages, or, in the alternative, remittitur. We affirm.
FACTS
On September 6, 1993, appellant Randall Weckman took eight passengers on a boat outing on Lake Minnetonka. The passengers included appellant's nephew James Weckman; James's wife, Jennifer Weckman; and James's and Jennifer's 11-month-old son, J.J.W., who are respondents here. Before leaving the public dock in Excelsior, appellant placed the boat's anchor on a swimming platform mounted on the stern of the boat. The 20-pound drag anchor was attached to the boat with a nylon rope that was tied off on a cleat mounted to the stern. There was a length of approximately 12 to 14 feet of rope between the cleat and the anchor, and the rope was coiled and placed on the swimming platform along with the anchor.
While appellant was operating the boat in a no-wake zone, in which boats may travel no faster than five miles per hour, the anchor flew into the boat hitting J.J.W. on the left side of the head. He was taken to the hospital, where surgery was performed.
Respondents filed an action for negligence in April 1997, and the case was tried to a jury in February 1999. At trial, appellant testified that he was traveling 15 miles per hour in the no-wake zone when the accident occurred. Appellant's son, Jacob Weckman, who also was a passenger on the boat, testified that the boat was traveling at or just above trolling speed. Respondent James Weckman testified that he did not believe that appellant's speed was excessive, and respondent Jennifer Weckman testified that she was not aware of any driving conduct by appellant that contributed to the accident.
Respondents' liability expert, Sergeant Kenneth Schilling of the Water Patrol Division of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department, testified that, in his opinion, the boat hit a large wake, causing the bow to rise and then fall. He testified that when the bow fell, the stern was forced upward, catapulting the anchor into the boat (the "teeter-totter" theory). Consistent with this theory, Jacob Weckman testified that when he first saw the anchor, it was moving upward, 10 to 15 feet behind the boat, with the rope taut. Appellant testified that he saw the anchor come "from the back of boat" and it was "straight up and coming straight down."
Robert Kriel, M.D., a pediatric neurologist, and Thomas Beniak, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist specializing in neuropsychological testing, testified at trial on behalf of respondents. Appellant submitted the deposition testimony of Lawrence Burstein, M.D., a pediatric neurologist, at trial.
Dr. Kriel testified that J.J.W. sustained a skull fracture and an injury to the left parietal area of the brain, causing the loss of a grape-sized portion of brain tissue. Dr. Kriel also testified that J.J.W. is ten times more susceptible to future seizures than he would be absent the head injury, and the likelihood of future seizure activity could greatly impact J.J.W.'s employability. Dr. Beniak testified that (1) J.J.W. has a "handedness" problem that causes him confusion about which hand he should use for different tasks and which foot he should use for kicking; (2)áhe attributes J.J.W.'s handedness problem to ongoing cerebral reorganization caused by the injury; and (3)áJ.J.W.'s intellectual capacity falls within the lower end of the range considered average for a child of his age and that J.J.W. has and will have ongoing problems with developing basic language functions, perceptual motor s
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|