Jeff, the quick scoop on Larry Drivon is that he is a graduate of  Stanford 
and and San Francisco Law School.? He's from Stockton and a  former San 
Joaquin County DA.? He's also a retired San Joaquin County  judge -- I don't 
know if that was?a full-time elected position or  whether he would be on call 
to serve as caseloads determine.? He was  president of the California Trial 
Lawyers Association (now California  Association of Consumer Attorneys) 
around 1990 and is currently chairman  of the board of trustees of Humphreys 
School of Law in Stockton.
?
He's been involved in at least a?couple of high profile case in  the Central 
Valley, including the case against Ford detailed in the  articles below 
(apparently, the verdict was later overturned due to juror  misconduct and a 
TV show tainted the $290 million verdict).? He was  also involved in a highly 
publicized case in which the Catholic  Diocese?of Stockton?was ordered to pay 
$30 million as the result  of molestations by a priest.
?
He's well known in trial lawyer circles, and has been a leader in  CTLA/CAOC 
for years.? I'm sure that includes working hard to raise  funds for 
atttorney-backed initiatives (including insurance issues) and  candidates.? 
?
I'll try to get some more substantive info ASAP.
?
Ken
?
?
?
?
From the Texas tort reform assn. publication:
?
Astronomical damage awards set a bad precedent 	
				
?		by JIM LAFFERTY 		?
?		Lubbock Avalanche Journal ??Saturday, November 13,  1999		?
?		?		?
?		[IMAGE]E-Mail this  article???[IMAGE]Printer-friendly version		?
?		?		?
?		MODESTO, Calif. - Now high is up? ?
		?
		That's the  question that thousands of giddy personal injury lawyers are 
asking  themselves in the wake, of two astronomical punitive damage awards 
handed  out by California juries within three days of each other in July.  ?
		?
		In one of the judgments, Modesto jurors ordered Ford  Motor Co. to pay $290 
million in punitive damages to a young man whose  mother, father and brother 
were killed when he tipped over his 1978 Bronco  on Father's Day 1993. ?
		?
		At the time of the accident,  Juan Ramon Romo, then 19, had been driving for 
a lengthy period of time,  so long, in fact, that everyone else in the Bronco 
- his mother and  father, a brother and two sisters had fallen asleep. Going 
slightly over  the speed limit on an interstate highway, Romo attempted 
illegally to pass  another vehicle on the right. ?
		?
		When the other driver  decided to move back into the right lane, Romo swerved 
left and rolled  over. His mother, father and brother were killed; he and his 
two sisters  survived. ?
		?
		The $290 million judgment in the Romo case  was the second largest ever 
entered against a U.S. car manufacturer, yet  it received little media 
attention outside the immediate Modesto area.  ?
		?
		Hardly surprising, perhaps, since only three days  before a Las Angeles jury 
had set the punitive damage bar impossibly high  by ordering General Motors 
to pay a staggering punitive damage award of  $4.9 billion. ?
		?
		By way of a yardstick, that amount  surpasses the combined Gross National 
Product of Afghanistan and Albania.  Almost obscured by the astonishing 
generosity of the jurors in Los Angeles  and Modesto, was a salient point 
that still sends shivers through  corporate defense lawyers around the 
country: By any objective criteria,  neither Ford nor General Motors appeared 
to bear any responsibility for  the accidents. ?
		?
		In the Los Angeles case, Patricia  Anderson, her four children and a family 
friend were stopped at a red  light in her 1979 Chevy Malibu on Christmas Eve 
1993. A drunken driver  traveling at 70 mph slammed his car into the Malibu's 
rear end. The  collision ruptured the Malibu's gas tank and ignited the 
spilled fuel.  Mrs. Anderson's four children suffered severe burns.  ?
		?
		When police tested the drunken driver he registered a  blood alcohol content 
of 0.20 - twice the legal limit for drivers in  California. ?
		?
		Similarly, in the Modesto case, driver  error and misjudgment on the part of 
Romo clearly appeared to be the cause  of the accident. ?
		?
		But Romo's lawyer, Lawrence Drivon,  immediately blamed the deaths on the 
Bronco, which he said was susceptible  to rollover, and had a defectively 
designed roof. ?
		?
		Yet  the Bronco exceeded all federal safety standards for roof strength in 
1978  by more than 100 percent and, in fact, exceeds the 1999 standard by 
more  than 30 percent. ?
		?
		Romo's Bronco also exceeded all  federal rollover standards for 1978 model., 
and federal accident data show  the Ford Broncos rollover rate was no higher 
than that of other SUVs.  ?
		?
		It's open to question whether the Bronco had been  properly maintained prior 
to the accident. The vehicle had been on the  road for 15 years, had numerous 
changes in ownership and had nearly  200,000 miles on the odometer. ?
		?
		In addition, Drivon  engaged in conduct that borders on jury tampering - 
mailing to each juror  a copy of his book, 'The Civil War on Consumer 
Rights," whose main thesis  is that large American corporations, like Ford, 
are attempting to close  "the courthouse doors" to average Americans by 
pressing for judicial  reforms. In the book, Drivon devotes an entire chapter 
to Ford's alleged  misdeeds. ?
		?
		In part because of Drivon's behavior, a  California judge granted Ford's 
motion to set aside the punitive damage  part of the verdict and ordered a 
new trial. Among other things, he cited  improper discussions among the 
jurors that prejudiced deliberations.  ?
		?
		But Ford could be entering double jeopardy with a new  trial. Drivon has 
indicated he will seek to raise the initial punitive  award threefold to more 
than $1 billion. With a sympathetic jury, that  could happen. ?
		?
		Damage award, of a few hundred million  here and a few hundred million there 
are still unusual, but California is  a national trendsetter. ?
		?
		If juries elsewhere start  emulating the ones in Los Angeles and Modesto, our 
now booming economy  could well begin to sputter. ?
		_______________________________  ?
		?
		Jim Lafferty is a former Associated Press and  Philadelphia Daily News 
reporter who now covers national and international  Legal trends as an 
independent journalist in Washington. Readers may  e-mail him at 
jameslafferty@usa.net.  ?
		?
		
		
		[IMAGE]  
		
		
		
		
		
		California Delivers Second Huge Verdict Against Auto Industry in  Just Three 
Days
		
		$295 Million for Three Children Orphaned in Ford Bronco  Crash
		
		By Christa  Zevitas
		
		At-A-Glance 
		Size of verdict: $295  million 
		$290 million in punitive damages 
		$5 million in  compensatory damages 
		Status: Punitive award overturned  and new trial pending. 
		State: California 
		Date of  Verdict: July 12, 1999 
		Length of Trial: 3 months  
		Length of Deliberations: 1 week 
		Case Name:  Romo v. Ford Motor Co. 
		Court: Stanislaus County Superior  Court, Modesto, Calif. 
		Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Joseph W.  Carcione Jr. of Law Offices of Joseph 
Carcione in Redwood City,  Calif. (10 lawyers); Laurence Drivon of Drivon & 
Tabak in  Stockton, Calif. (4 lawyers) 
		Defense Lawyers: Frank Kelly  of Dryden, Margoles, Schimaneck, Hartman, Kelly 
& Wait in San  Francisco; Douglas Seitz of Snell & Wilmer in Phoenix, Ariz.;  
Gary S. Davis of Davis, Echols & Boyd in Modesto, Calif. (6  lawyers)  
		
		
		Just three days after a Los Angeles jury hammered General Motors  with the 
largest verdict of the year, another California jury  slammed Ford Motor Co. 
with the year's fifth-largest verdict.  
		
		The Modesto jury awarded $295 million to three children whose  parents and 
brother died when their 1978 Ford Bronco rolled over in  a highway accident. 
The verdict included $290 million in punitive  damages - the second largest 
punitive award ever against an  automaker.  
		
		The defense argued that the drivers of the two vehicles - not the  company - 
were responsible for the tragedy. But a 12-person jury  found the automaker 
78% liable for the deaths, concluding that Ford  chose to save money by 
opting for a less sturdy roof design. The  jury divided the remaining 
liability between the two drivers.  
		
		A company spokesman told The Modesto Bee that "as tragic as [the  accident] 
was, it wasn't our fault, and it wasn't the vehicle's  fault."  
		
		Lawyers for neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could be  reached for 
comment. This story is based on local newspaper and wire  stories from the 
time of the verdict.  
		
		Bronco Rolls Over
		
		On June 20, 1993, 19-year-old Juan Romo was driving five other  family 
members home to northern California when he attempted to pass  a van on the 
right at approximately 50 mph. The van's driver didn't  see Romo and changed 
lanes at the same time, forcing Romo to swerve  hard to the right to avoid 
him. Romo then overcorrected with a hard  turn to the left, lost control and, 
while traveling about 47 mph,  the vehicle rolled over - killing Romo's 
mother, Salustia, 40; his  father, Ramon, 39; and his brother, Ramiro, 16.  
		
		Romo's parents and brother were all wearing their seatbelts and  died because 
the Bronco's roof smashed straight down onto the  dashboard and crushed their 
heads, according to plaintiffs'  attorneys.  
		
		Juan and his two sisters - Evangelina, 14, and Maria, 8 -  suffered only 
minor injuries. Plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Carcione  Jr. told The Modesto 
Bee that the sisters survived because they  weren't wearing their seatbelts 
and were thrown from the Bronco.  Romo survived because he ducked below the 
dashboard, said Carcione,  name partner in a 10-lawyer firm in Redwood City, 
Calif.  
		
		Romo and his sisters sued Ford, alleging that the automaker knew  the 
Bronco's roof - which was two-thirds plastic - would not hold up  in a 
rollover. Carcione and his co-counsel, Laurence Drivon, argued  that Ford 
knew the roof was unsafe, but decided to save the  relatively small cost of 
reinforcing it with steel - a defect the  company corrected in post-1979 
model years.  
		
		According to a press release, Carcione described the roof as a  camper top. 
To manufacture the vehicle, Ford basically chopped off  the back portion of a 
1978 pickup truck and stuck on the plastic  camper top, put a bench seat in 
the back and removed a warning that  had been posted on the camper top that 
said, "Do Not Ride Under This  Camper Top," Carcione said in the release.  
		
		The plaintiffs' attorneys also contended that the Bronco was  unsafe because 
it was prone to rollover. The vehicle's rollover rate  is three to five times 
higher than any other passenger car and its  rollover death rate is almost 
three times greater than the 1980-1996  model Broncos, they say in a press 
release.  
		
		Although Carcione and Drivon lacked explicit documentation to  illustrate the 
Bronco's structural weaknesses, they filled that gap  with a prize witness - 
former Ford executive vice president Tom  Feeney, who testified that company 
officials were aware that the  roof was virtually certain to fail in a 
rollover. Feeney gave  additional testimony that in the 27 years he had 
worked for the  company, the Bronco was the worst vehicle Ford ever put out 
in terms  of crashworthiness.  
		
		Ford countered that the Bronco was perfectly sound and met all  federal 
safety standards, noting that Feeney had "never worked in  truck product 
development."  
		
		Defense attorneys also argued that Romo was at fault, and that  his 
right-hand passing maneuver was illegal. They contended that the  van's 
driver was also partly to blame.  
		
		On July 12, 1999, the jury awarded the Romo family $5 million in  
compensatory damages and $290 million in punitives.  
		
		At the close of the three-month trial, the plaintiffs' attorneys  urged 
jurors to award punitives totaling $1 billion. They noted  after the trial 
that the $296 million award amounts to only 10 days  worth of Ford's net 
profits.  
		
		Drivon, partner in a four-lawyer firm in Stockton, Calif., also  called the 
Bronco the most dangerous vehicle Ford ever made.  
		
		"The American public is waking up to the carnage that's being  visited upon 
the public by some American industries such as tobacco  and automobiles," he 
told the Associated Press.  
		
		New Trial Pending
		
		Following the verdict, defense attorneys asked for a mistrial  claiming that 
Romo's counsel made inflammatory public statements  supporting the $4.9 
billion GM verdict, which came down while jurors  in his own case were still 
in deliberations. The motion was denied.  
		
		Ford appealed, and on Sept. 15, the trial judge ordered a new  trial on 
punitives, finding that the case was tainted by juror  misconduct.  
		
		One juror told others of a 60 Minutes II segment about Ford  Mustangs and 
fuel-tank fires, and told them it was "evidence of  Ford's malice regarding 
the 1978 Bronco," wrote Superior Court Judge  Roger Beauchesne. Another juror 
told the jury of "a morbid  nightmare" she had in which her child and other 
jurors' children  were killed in a Bronco rollover while being taunted by 
Ford  attorneys, the judge wrote. Beauchesne said the two jurors' comments  
may have influenced the deliberations and noted that the jury vote  on 
punitive damages was 9-3, the exact majority needed.  
		
		The Wall Street Journal reported that Carcione said he's  "delighted" to try 
the case again.  
		
		"Reversing the $290 million award was no victory for Ford. The  next jury 
will award even higher damages," said Carcione in a press  release. "Four of 
the jurors in the last trial wanted to assess  punitive damages at a billion 
dollars or more. The $290 million  amount was reached as a compromise."  
		
		Drivon echoed Carcione's thoughts.  
		
		"Sooner of later, Ford will have to accept what 12 American  jurors will 
continue to say: That this Bronco is the result of  malicious actions by Ford 
who willfully put profits ahead of  people," he said in a press release.  
		
		Beauchesne upheld the jury's unanimous finding that the Bronco's  defective 
roof caused the deaths of Romo's family members.  
		
		While Ford expressed its gratitude at the new punitives trial, it  may appeal 
the compensatory damage award as well as the jury's  finding of liability.  
		
		According to wire reports, Drivon advised Ford not to celebrate  
prematurely.  
		
		"The best they get out of this is that they're exposed to the  verdict of a 
second jury," he told the Associated Press.  
		
		, 2000 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights  Reserved
		
				

 - email.gif
 - print.gif
 - ehhot2.gif