The Trial Lawyer Magazine Logo

Kevin Boyle - Panish Shea & Boyle
Kevin Boyle - Panish Shea & Boyle


DATE:  June 2013

CASE:  Symington v. Turtletaub, et al.

TOPIC:  personal injury, automobile v. motorcycle

CASE NO.:  30-2012-00567499


JUDGE:  Hon. Jamao Moberly


SETTLEMENT:  $2,265,000

PLAINTIFF(S) ATTORNEYS:  Thomas Schultz, Andrew Owen (Panish Shea & Boyle); Sean Shamsi (The Shamsi Law Firm)

DEFENDANT(S) ATTORNEYS:  Marc Garber (Halas & Muhar), Cleidin Atanous (Law Offices of Cleidin Z. Antanous)


Plaintiffs were husband and wife.  Husband was lawfully riding his motorcycle to work in the carpool lane of the 405 freeway.  Defendant was unlawfully driving in the carpool lane as a solo driver in front of plaintiff, and as he crossed over the double yellow lines attempting to exit the carpool lane, he steered into plaintiff’s right of way, causing plaintiff to be ejected from his motorcycle.  Husband suffered hip and arm fractures and underwent five separate surgeries.  Because of the severity of his injuries, the husband faced at least one full hip replacement surgery.  Wife also suffered a loss of consortium as a result of the collision.

INJURIES:  Fractures to left Humerus and left hip.


Prior to Panish Shea & Boyle’s engagement, defendants offered $500,000 to settle all claims.  Two months later—after expert discovery—the matter settled for $2,265,000 a week before trial.


  • Defendant’s negligent driving was the sole cause of the collision.
  • Defendant did not have any evidence showing or proving that plaintiff was in any way at fault for the collision.
  • As a result of the collision, husband endured five surgeries and will have to endure life long limitations to his once active lifestyle.
  • As a result of the collision, husband will have to endure at least one additional surgery on his left arm, as well as a full hip replacement coupled with two possible future revision hip replacement surgeries.
  • As a result of the collision, wife suffered serious emotional hardship, lost the companionship of her husband, and had to take on her husband’s duties at home.


  • Defendant was only partly at fault for the collision.
  • Plaintiff husband was primarily at fault for the collision.
  • Plaintiff would only need one future hip replacement surgery.
  • Plaintiff would not suffer any future lost earnings or a loss of earnings capacity as a result of the collision.
  • Plaintiff’s future life care plan and past medicals all on lien were excessive.
  • Plaintiff wife’s loss of consortium claim was excessive.
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
chevron-down linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram