$34.9 Million Verdict for Bus Driver Left Paralyzed After Jackknifed Silva Trucking Rig

On the morning of October 11, 2010, Debra Hackett was driving on Highway 12 near Isleton when a tractor-trailer owned by Silva Trucking, Inc. and operated by Elaine McDonold jackknifed across the roadway and collided with her vehicle. Hackett, then 56 and working as a bus driver, had no time to avoid the collision.

The impact was catastrophic. Hackett sustained multiple skull fractures, facial fractures, a spinal cord injury that left her paralyzed from the waist down, a traumatic brain injury, a fractured jaw, a lacerated liver, and broken ribs. The injuries ended her career and required extensive ongoing medical care.

The Hacketts filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court against Silva Trucking and McDonold. Before trial, the defendants' insurers declined a global demand of $5,000,000. More than a year before trial, the Hacketts made a statutory offer of $12,500,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The defense rejected that offer as well.

At trial, Robert Buccola of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora led the courtroom effort alongside colleagues Steven Campora, Robert Nelsen, and Ryan Dostart, with Eliot Reiner of Eliot Reiner APLC co-counseling. The defendants conceded negligence and causation, leaving the jury to decide the full scope of Debra Hackett's damages. The evidence presented covered her past and future medical needs, lost earnings as a bus driver, and the permanent nature of her paralysis and cognitive deficits.

On December 6, 2013, the jury returned a verdict of $34,921,215. Debra received nearly $32 million, including $1,176,069 for past economic loss, $16,745,146 for future economic damages, $5 million for past noneconomic loss, and $9 million for future noneconomic loss. Her husband William received $3 million for loss of consortium.

The award was reported at the time as the largest personal-injury jury verdict in Sacramento County history. Because the plaintiffs' section 998 offer had gone unanswered, they sought additional post-judgment costs. Defendants challenged that cost award on appeal, but the California Court of Appeal (Case No. C076745) rejected their contentions and affirmed the trial court's order in full. The underlying verdict was not disturbed.