Plaintiff's leg pinned when customer backs vehicle out of garage. $18.5M. Sacramento County.

Summary

Cabinet installer is twice pinned between two vehicles in driveway.

The Case

Case Name: Guzman v. Wigle
Court and Case Number: Sacramento Superior Court / 34-2022-00319455
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, June 13, 2025
Date Action was Filed: Monday, June 23, 2025
Type of Case: Negligence
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Steven Gevercer
Plaintiffs:
Raul Velazquez Guzman
Defendants:
Nathan Scott Wigle
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

Gross Verdict or Award: $18,512,243
Economic Damages:
Past: $600,000

Future: $3,400,000
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $4,500,00

Future: $10,000,000
Trial or Arbitration Time: 8 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 2 days

The Attorneys

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Gavrilov & Brooks by Ognian Gavrilov and Priscilla Parker, Sacramento.
Attorney for the Defendant:
McNamara Ambacher Wheeler Hirsig & Gray by Wilma Gray, Pleasant Hill.

The Experts

Plaintiff's Medical Expert(s):
Dennis Meredith, M.D., orthopedic surgery.

Douglas Schuch, M.D., – vascular surgery.

April Stallings, lifecare planning.

Cary Caulfield, P.T., functional capacity evaluation.
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Devon Zarkowsky, M.D., vascular surgery.

Miranda Van Horn, lifecare planning .
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Ricky Sarkisian, Ph.D., vocational rehabilitation.

Craig Enos, C.P.A., economics.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Maria Brady, vocational rehabilitation.

Timothy Gillihan, economics.

Facts and Background

Facts and Background:
On January 18, 2022, plaintiff, age 45, and his coworker arrived at the defendant’s home to install custom cabinets. Plaintiff backed their box truck into defendant’s driveway, parking it there. At the request of plaintiff and his coworker, defendant went to obtain matching paint to allow for post-installation wall touch-ups. While plaintiff stood behind the box truck reviewing installation plans, defendant entered his garage and proceeded to back his vehicle out. Defendant admitted – both in deposition and at trial – that he only checked his left rear-view mirror to avoid scraping his car against shelving inside the garage. He did not check his other mirrors or look directly behind him.

As defendant reversed, plaintiff’s left leg became pinned between the rear of the defendant’s vehicle and the footrail of the box truck. Defendant heard plaintiff banging on the trunk, exited the vehicle, saw what had occurred, and, panicking, returned to the car. After pulling forward, defendant failed to properly put the vehicle in park, allowing the vehicle to roll backward, pinning plaintiff's leg a second time.

Plaintiff had immigrated to the United States from Mexico 20 years prior. A life-long carpenter, he had been employed with the closet company for 16 years. Plaintiff spoke no English and had to testify through an interpreter.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That plaintiff's negligence in backing up his car was the cause of plaintiff's severe injuries.
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant admitted negligence, but disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, his lost wages, and the necessity of future medical care.

Injuries and Other Damages

Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Plaintiff sustained a catastrophic crush injury to his lower left leg. The impact shattered the bones into many fragments. In addition to the extensive bone damage, the primary artery behind his left knee was severed, resulting in more than seven hours without blood flow to the leg.

Plaintiff underwent numerous complex surgeries at Kaiser as follows: 1. Initial stabilization with external fixation hardware 2. Vascular repair, using a vein harvested from his right thigh to construct a bypass artery 3. Fasciotomies, with both calves surgically opened to relieve pressure from swelling 4. Definitive repair, involving many screws and plates to reconstruct the leg 5. Plastic surgery, to address massive tissue and muscle necrosis due to ischemia; involved muscle rearrangement and skin grafts He remained hospitalized for one month, followed by another month in a rehabilitation facility.

Soon after discharge, he developed sepsis and arthrofibrosis of the left knee due to excessive scar tissue. He underwent an additional surgery to release adhesions and restore mobility. Approximately one-year post-injury, plaintiff's wife brought him to Kaiser with a high fever. Surgeons determined that his hardware had become infected. The removal surgery was especially complex due to surrounding dead tissue and again required the involvement of a plastic surgeon to preserve remaining viable muscle.

Today, plaintiff’s lower left leg is severely scarred, and he remains unable to walk unaided – still relying on crutches more than three years later. He cannot return to carpentry, and due to limited English proficiency and lack of transferable skills, retraining options are virtually nonexistent.

Demands and Offers

Plaintiff §998 Demand: $2,500,000
Defendant §998 Offer: $1,250,000

Additional Notes

This is an open-policy case because Farmers failed to timely offer its insurance policy, failed to investigate ways to pay, and instructed its in-house counsel to take a position against the defendant.

Post-verdict: The court affirmed the verdict, rejected motion for new trial, and awarded approximately $2.3 million in 998 costs.