En Español

Personal Injury Legal Cases

2000 Nissan Frontier Defective Seat Back Causes Spinal and Head Injuries

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC.; THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED; DIANE KORNMANN and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.


CASE NO: BC386031

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

  1. Strict Product Liability
  2. Negligent Product Liability
  3. Negligence and Negligent Entrustment

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COME NOW Plaintiff JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE for causes of action against defendants, alleges as follows:

COMMON ALLEGATIONS FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

  1. At all times Plaintiff JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE has been a citizen and resident of the City of Alhambra, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
  2. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., was and is a Limited Liability Company, organized and existing under the laws of the nation of Japan with a principal place of business in the City of Tokyo, Japan.
  3. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., was and is a corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business in the City of Gardena, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
  4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., was and is a corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the City and County of San Diego, State of California.
  5. At all times mentioned herein Defendants, CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED and DIANE KORNMANN were and are citizens and residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
  6. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were individuals, corporations, partnerships, and/or associations residing in and/or authorized to and/or doing business in the State of California.
  7. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them are unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and/or capacities of said defendants are ascertained, the Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend the Complaint accordingly.
  8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that each defendant designated herein as a Doe was responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings herein referred to which proximately caused the damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged, either through said defendant's own negligence or through the conduct of its agents, servants, employees or representatives in some other manner.
  9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereupon alleges that at all times mentioned herein the defendants were the agents, servants, employees, representatives and/or joint venturers of their co-defendants and were, as such acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency, services, employment, representation and/or joint venture in that each and every defendant, as aforesaid when acting as principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, representative and/or joint venturer.
  10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that at all times mentioned herein each of the defendants, including Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, representatives of each of the remaining defendants and were at all times material hereto acting within the authorized course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or representation, and/or that all of said acts, conduct and omissions were subsequently ratified by their respective principals and the benefits thereof accepted by such principals.
  11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, leasing, renting, selling, retailing, wholesaling and advertising a certain subject 2000 Nissan Frontier, California License Plate No. 7X97019, Vehicle Identification No. 1N6ED27T5YC327636, (hereinafter the "SUBJECT VEHICLE") and each and every component part thereof, which defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would be used without inspection for defects in its parts, mechanisms or design, for use in the State of California and elsewhere.
  12. On or about October 21, 2006, while at all times properly using her available seat belt and shoulder restraints, Plaintiff JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE was driving the SUBJECT VEHICLE, in the City of Pasadena, in the County of Los Angeles, in the State of California. Plaintiff was stopped in the number one lane of eastbound Corson Street for the red light at Lake Avenue and Corson Street. While she was stopped at the intersection, her vehicle was rear ended by another vehicle, causing her to hit the vehicle in front of her. When her vehicle was rear ended, Plaintiff's seat broke and collapsed rearward, permitting her body to submarine backward and underneath her seat belt and shoulder restraints, in turn causing the Plaintiff's head to strike the rear passenger seat back seat, causing catastrophic and permanent spinal and head injuries, permanently rendering Plaintiff a paraplegic.
  13. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Strict Product Liability against Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

  14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1 through 12, above, as though fully set forth herein.
  15. ;Defendants, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knew that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle including but not limited to Plaintiff.
  16. The SUBJECT VEHICLE, and each of its component parts, were manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, adjusted, and selected by each of the defendants, with inherent vices and defects both in design and manufacturing (hereinafter "SUBJECT DEFECTS"), and by their failure to warn of the SUBJECT DEFECTS of which they were at all times aware, which SUBJECT DEFECTS made the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts, dangerous, hazardous and unsafe both for its intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses.
  17. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the following:
    • Defective and unsafe seats and seat backs, which failed to perform during the accident sequence, causing the Plaintiff's head to be forced back into the rear passenger compartment and causing her body to slide off the front seat, submarine/ramp up and back over the seat and be thrown into the back seat, breaking her neck, rendering Plaintiff a paraplegic. At all times prior to their manufacturer of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, defendants knew and were well aware, from both prior accidents, lawsuits, and warranty claims, and from mandatory pre-production fuel system integrity tests required by law to be conducted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS"), 49 C.F.R. § 571.301, that the SUBJECT VEHICLE's seat backs were too weak and were incapable of withstanding foreseeable, modest, rear-end impacts at closure speeds as low as 30 miles per hour, without collapsing and causing catastrophic injuries to properly-restrained occupants. Despite the availability of simple methods to correct the defects, as recommended on information and belief by Defendants' own automotive engineers including, but not limited to, strengthened seat back frames, stronger recliners, dual recliners, and belt-integrated seats, and in spite of the known risk of serious and fatal head and spinal injuries and occupant ejection, defendants chose to ignore the inherent safety problem, and took no action to prevent such debilitating injuries and deaths, because of concern solely over cost penalties, including increased production costs and reduced profits.
    • A defective and unsafe restraint system, which defendants and each of them knew and were aware, from prior accidents, incidents, claims, lawsuits, warranty claims, other media publications, and from their own FMVSS 301 fuel system integrity test, that would fail to restrain an occupant in the SUBJECT VEHICLE in the event of a rear impact event, following known and foreseeable collapse of the front seat back rearward and which, in this case, failed to restrain Plaintiff, allowing her to ramp up and over the seat, breaking the head rest and rendering it ineffective, and throwing the Plaintiff into the back seat during the accident sequence, breaking her neck and rendering her a paraplegic.
    • Inadequate and/or lack of any warnings regarding the above defects.
  18. Said SUBJECT VEHICLE, and each of its component parts was unsafe for its intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuses by reason of the defects in its design and/or manufacturing and/or failure to warn by said defendants, and each of them, in that when the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts was used by Plaintiff, on or about October 21, 2006, as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, the SUBJECT VEHICLE, during a reasonably foreseeable rear end impact event, was dangerous and defective, and the driver's seat and seat back broke, rendering the restraint system totally ineffective, and forcing Plaintiff's body to catapult backwards, breaking her neck and causing serious head and neck injuries to Plaintiff, legally resulting in Plaintiff's damages as set forth herein.
  19. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, serious personal injuries were caused thereby to Plaintiff, causing her to suffer serious physical and mental injuries to her body and mind, all in turn legally resulting in Plaintiff's special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  20. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the SUBJECT DEFECTS inherent in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides, Plaintiff has further suffered a loss of wages and earning capacity, and will continue to suffer earnings and wage losses in the future, according to proof at trial.
  21. ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRAYER ON FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION, BY PLAINTIFF, Against Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

  22. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS, which Plaintiff alleges was a legal cause of her losses, damages, injuries and harm, exposed Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the risks of death and catastrophic injuries arising from potential dangers known to the defendants, in order to advance the Defendants' pecuniary interests and thus acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of the Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, warranting an award of exemplary damages against Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294 c)(1), and the rule enunciated in Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 374, 381-382 and PPG Industries, Inc v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal. App.4th 1120. The facts supporting the Defendants' intentional conduct which exposed the Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to serious potential danger known to the defendants in order to advance the Defendants' pecuniary interests, are on information and belief, as follows:
    • Defendants and each of them, have known since the early 1970's, that most of their vehicles' front seat backs, when the seats are occupied, are so weak and poorly-reinforced, such that they can and do collapse rearward and will strike the rear seats in a 30-35 mile per hour rear end collision. In February, 1992, CBS aired a nationwide "60-Minutes" segment, of which defendants were at all times aware, which exposed this problem with Defendants' (and other U.S. automaker's) seats, as well as recounting the stories of several accident victims whose seats had collapsed in moderate speed rear-end collisions leading to deaths and catastrophic injuries. Also featured in the "60-Minutes" presentation was an interview with Mercedes-Benz' executives who pointed out that their vehicles' seats were not permitted to collapse during such rear-end impacts, and that such performance "would be considered as unacceptable." Recognizing that 30 mile per hour rear end collisions are quite commonplace on American's roads, yet concerned over a rash of Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega gas tank explosions during such moderate rear end impacts, in 1976 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") enacted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 301, which required that all automakers selling automobiles in the U.S. conduct documented, filmed and/or videotaped rear end barrier impact crash testing of all of their vehicle platforms, to ensure proper fuel system integrity during such accidents.
    • The films of these FMVSS 301 tests reveal that virtually all of Defendants' and their American competitor automakers' vehicles' front seat backs in vehicles manufactured since the 301 tests were first required, failed and collapsed backward causing the test dummies therein to strike the rear seats of its vehicles during these rear end impact tests, a fact of which defendants were clearly aware. On information and belief, defendants also knew from a 1979 New Car Assessment Program Test ("NCAP") conducted by NHTSA, that both front seats of their vehicles would and did fail and collapse rearward, and Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants and/or their representatives dispatched one or more teams of safety engineers to investigate these incidents, in which it had been established that both crash test dummies occupying the vehicles' front seats had been propelled rearward striking the back seat of the vehicle.
    • As a result of a flood of letters from the public following the February 1992 "60-Minutes" presentation, Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants, their U.S. competitor automakers, and their predecessors, all commissioned various Seat Back Strength Task Forces comprised of numerous engineers, management and in-house attorneys in an effort to look into the seat back failure issues as well as to look into what Defendants' European competitors (including Mercedes-Benz) were doing with regard to seat back performance.
    • Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges that since the 1992 "60 Minutes" presentation and at all times prior to their manufacturer of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, defendants knew and were well aware, from both prior accidents, lawsuits, incidents, and warranty claims, from NHTSA hotline Vehicle Owner Questionnaires ("VOQ's"), and from mandatory pre-production fuel system integrity tests required by law to be conducted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS"), 49 C.F.R. § 571.301, that the SUBJECT VEHICLE's seat backs were too weak and were incapable of withstanding foreseeable, modest, rear-end impacts at closure speeds as low as 30 miles per hour, without collapsing and causing death and serious catastrophic spinal and head injuries to their occupants.
    • Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, despite knowledge of all of the foregoing, defendants knowingly and purposefully designed, manufactured and installed, and continued to design, manufacture, and install into the SUBJECT VEHICLE, such unsafe and defective passenger seats which they knew would cause death and/or serious injuries to front seated occupants in foreseeable and statistically inevitable rear-end impacts, and thus knowingly and deliberately exposed properly-restrained occupants of their vehicles, including Plaintiff as an occupant of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, to the risks of death and serious injuries resulting from such foreseeable and inevitable rear-end impacts all for the purposes of advancing defendants pecuniary interests, i.e., avoidance of more costly components to enhance and improve seat back strength, avoidance of more expensive but alternative amply feasible designs (including, but not limited to, metallurgically stronger recliners, dual recliners, stronger seat back frames, and belt-integrated seats -- any of which would have prevented the Plaintiff's catastrophic injuries in this case), avoidance of increased production costs, avoidance of loss of profits, as well as loss of customer confidence, loss of sales, and adverse publicity adversely impacting Defendants' sales of many platforms of their vehicles using similar seat back designs. In so intentionally exposing Plaintiff and other members of the public to serious potential dangers of death and serious injuries known to the defendants in order to advance Defendants' pecuniary interests, in conscious disregard for the safety of the Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, defendants and each of them have acted despicably, because such conduct could kill people, as enunciated in the case of Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1141, expressly affirmed on all grounds except federal Const'l issues at 113 Cal.App.4th 738 (2003).
    • Defendants' conduct alleged herein was despicable, because defendants knew and intended that their purposeful design, manufacture, and installation into the SUBJECT VEHICLE of such unsafe and defective passenger seats which they knew would cause death and/or serious injuries to front seated occupants in foreseeable and statistically inevitable rear-end impacts, could kill people and/or cause them to suffer permanent, catastrophic injuries, such as those suffered by Plaintiff as a result thereof.
    • Defendants further acted despicably, by failing to warn Plaintiff and other members of the public, of the risks of death and serious injuries resulting from the defective and unsafe seats they knowingly and deliberately installed into the SUBJECT VEHICLE, of which risks of death and serious injury defendants were at all times well aware, and which defendants willfully and deliberately failed to warn for the purposes of advancing defendants pecuniary interests, i.e., avoidance of loss of vehicle sales and lost profits, as well as loss of customer confidence, and adverse publicity adversely impacting Defendants' sales of many platforms of their vehicles using similar seat back designs. In so intentionally failing to warn Plaintiff and other members of the public of such serious risks of death and serious injuries known to the defendants in order to advance Defendants' pecuniary interests, defendants acted in conscious disregard for the safety of the Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  23. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT VEHICLE's ultimate defects in its design and production were fully intended by the defendants to reside therein such that they were and are the product of the entire corporate management and corporate policy of the defendants with respect to the conscious willful and disregard of public safety for Defendants' pecuniary gain with regard to the design, manufacture, production, and marketing of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  24. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT VEHICLE's ultimate defects in its design and production were fully intended by the defendants to reside therein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the decisions made by the defendants and each of them knowingly to design and manufacture the SUBJECT VEHICLE with its defective seats and seat backs, its defective restraint system and components, and failure to warn of these defects, all in the defective and dangerous manner as alleged herein, were made by corporate management of the defendants and each of them, by the product of corporate policy, in that such major and strategic design and manufacturing decisions, by virtue of the corporate structure of the defendants and each of them, could be made only at the level of corporate management, as the product of corporate policy, given the substantial capitalization requirements and risks associated with such high level design and manufacturing decisions, across an entire vehicle platform line for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, such that they were and are the product of the entire corporate management and corporate policy of the defendants with respect to the conscious and willful disregard of public safety for Defendants' pecuniary gain regarding the design, manufacture, production, marketing and sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  25. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants and each of them, an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, is proper and appropriate to punish said defendants and to deter such conduct in the future.
  26. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Negligence [Product Liability] against Defendants NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

  27. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 23, above, and incorporate the same by reference as though set forth in detail herein.
  28. At all times herein mentioned, defendants and each of them, had a duty to use reasonable due care in the manufacture, design, assembly, packaging, testing, fabricating, analysis, inspection, merchandising, marketing, distributing, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, supply, lease, rental, warning, selection, inspection and repair of said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts.
  29. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them, knew, and/or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its components parts were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided inadequate warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure the person who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  30. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly, manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided inadequate warnings and provided said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts so that the same was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe and not crashworthy for the respective use and purpose for which it was intended when used and driven as recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by members of the public, including the actions of that driver who hit Plaintiff from behind in a reasonably foreseeable and statistically inevitable rear end impact event. In particular, said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts during a reasonably foreseeable maneuver were dangerous and defective in that the driver's seat and seat back failed, rendering the restraint system ineffective, causing severe injury to Plaintiff.
  31. As a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct of the defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, defendants legally caused the severe personal injuries to the Plaintiff, all in turn legally resulting in Plaintiff's damages as set forth herein.
  32. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Negligence and Negligent Entrustment against Defendants CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED and DIANE KORNMANN)

  33. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 28 above and incorporates the same by reference as though set forth in detail herein.
  34. On or about October 21, 2006, Defendant, DIANE KORNMANN, was the owner of a 2005 Nissan Altima, California License No. 5JFP610 ("ALTIMA"), and, by words or conduct, gave permission to CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED to use the vehicle. CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED carelessly, negligently, and recklessly, struck the rear of the vehicle being operated by the Plaintiff. CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED was negligent in following the Plaintiff's vehicle too closely and in failing to maintain a safe distance between his vehicle and the vehicle being operated by the Plaintiff. Defendant, DIANE KORNMANN, knew, or should have known, that CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED was incompetent or unfit to drive the ALTIMA, and failed to use due care in negligently, carelessly, and recklessly entrusting the ALTIMA to CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED given the latter's known incompetence and unfitness to drive, which incompetence and unfitness was substantial factor in causing the damages to the Plaintiff.
  35. Pursuant to California Probate Code § 550 through 555, Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendant THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED within the limits and coverage of liability insurance.
  36. As a direct, legal and proximate cause of the negligence, carelessness and unlawful conduct of the Defendants, CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED and DIANE KORNMANN, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, legally resulting in Plaintiff's damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants and each of them, as follows:

  1. For special and economic damages including, past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of income and future earning capacity, according to proof at trial;
  2. For general damages including damages for pain suffering, physical and mental injuries, including serious emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life;
  3. For prejudgment interest, as determined by and accrued according to applicable statutes;
  4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  5. For any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper;
  6. Limits of liability insurance, ONLY, AGAINST DEFENDANT THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER RORY CLARK, DECEASED, and ONLY on the Third Cause of Action;
  7. Exemplary and punitive damages, ONLY, AGAINST DEFENDANTS NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN DESIGN AMERICA, INC., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, and ONLY on the First and Second Causes of Action.

DATED: November 18, 2009 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D. CHASE, Esq.
MIKE PEÑA, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE, hereby demands a trial by jury.

DATED: November 18, 2009 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D. CHASE, Esq.
MIKE PEÑA, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff JAKLIN MIKHAL ROMINE

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

CALL US!
(800) 561-4887

Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

Client Reviews of Bisnar Chase

“Great people in this office, everyone was really helpful explaining everything. I was referred by my aunt for my car accident in October and the case went pretty fast. No problems and very professional. I was kept in the loop thru [sic] the whole process and was able to get a better settlement than my insurance company said I would. I cant really compare them to other law firms because it was the first time I had to use an attorney, but my bad experience with the car accident was handled as good as I could have hoped.”

by Paige Montgomery

reviewed at Google+

“John Bisnar was so professional and caring. When I found myself in this situation and never having a car accident before I didn't know what steps to take. Mr. Bisnar explained every single detail to me and what to expect. His staff was amazing, friendly and seemed to really care about me as a person. I lost all doubt I may have had about dealing with personal injury lawyers and couldn't be happier with the level of service I received. I was constantly updated on my case status and received far more from my settlement than I expected.”

by Brady M.

reviewed at Yelp

“My sister in law referred me to Bisnar Chase after I was rear ended on the 405 in January. They went over everything with me for best and worst case scenarios of my car accident claim. I fully knew what to expect and was informed every step of the way. That was a major factor to me! In addition to my settlement which I was really happy with, I couldn't believe how great their whole staff treated me. I really felt like "me" as a person mattered a lot to them. Would highly recommend!”

by Shannon F.

reviewed at Yelp

See All Ratings And Awards

The BISNAR CHASE Difference

  • “I was in a serious auto accident when I was in law school. I had to hire a personal injury attorney and had a really bad experience.”

    John Bisnar

    on what made him want to become a personal injury attorney

  • “If you hire Bisnar | Chase and we don't recover money for you in your case, you owe us absolutely nothing.”

    Brian Chase

    on whether or not you would owe money if your case was lost

  • “Whatever the philosphy of the management is, is going to be carried through by the employees and it’s going to reflect on the experience the clients have.”

    John Bisnar

    on his philosophy on running a law firm

  • “The insurance companies are going to be investigating that accident the day it happens. You need to have a lawyer on your side the day it happens as well.”

    Brian Chase

    on when you should contact an attorney

  • “The first thing we want to do with our clients is to relieve the stress. Make them feel comfortable. Treat them as an honored guest.”

    John Bisnar

    on how he would define superior client representation

  • “It's hard to answer that question right up front without a thorough analysis. What I can guarantee you is, with the resources of Bisnar | Chase we will maximize the value of your case.”

    Brian Chase

    on what your case is worth

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys
1301 Dove St #120
Newport Beach, CA 92660

local: (949) 203-3814
Get Directions

California Personal Injury Blog