personal injury law firm Call now (510) 944-0102
personal injury law firm Call now (510) 944-0102
Pedestrian v. Commercial Van Accident
Carol and Kieran Harty are a successful married couple based in San Francisco. Parents of
three adult children, they enjoy travelling and long urban hikes. In 2022, they planned to
relocate from San Francisco to Dublin, Ireland where Kieran had accepted a senior role at a
financial services company. They were looking forward to the opportunity to live and travel in
Europe.
Tragically, those plans were ruined because they were run down in a clearly marked cross walk
in a San Francisco intersection by a commercial van driver.
While out shopping in on a sunny day, the Harty’s crossed an intersection on a green light and a
clear pedestrian signal. They were walking slightly behind another group of pedestrians, when
the van driver made a left turn into the intersection. The van directly hit Ms. Harty. The force of
the impact pushed Ms. Harty into Mr. Harty, knocking them both to the ground. The van then
drove over Ms. Harty’s leg, pinning her down and leaving her screaming in pain. Only after Mr.
Harty screamed at the driver did he back up the van to release Ms. Harty.
Ms. Harty suffered catastrophic injuries including complex fractures of her pelvis and left leg,
necessitating highly invasive surgery and years of recovery. She continues to suffer from
shooting pain and will never regain all of her physical ability. Mr. Harty suffered a serious ankle
fracture requiring a months’ long recovery, as well as being a witness to a vehicle running over
his wife.
Heinrich Law was retained by the Harty’s to file a lawsuit. We discovered that the driver,
Emanuel Anderson was working at the time of the incident. Thus, our lawsuit was filed against
both the driver and his employer, Pilkington, North America.
From the outset, the defense’s arguments in this case were weak. The driver testified that he
didn’t see the Harty’s because he was looking at pedestrians who crossed in front of them.
Heinrich Law’s success in this case was based on accessing available videos of the accident
and the driver, testimony given in depositions, and rigorous investigation of the driver’s behavior
and background.
Video evidence of the accident:
The van driver accelerated into clearly visible pedestrians for no apparent reason
Pilkington had installed cameras in its van. One camera was forward-facing and captured the
entire incident. Another camera faced the driver, which captured his unusual behavior.
Externally facing camera
The video facing the street clearly shows Cari and Kieran walking within a marked crosswalk
with a visible green light as Mr. Anderson accelerates the van into them while making a left turn.
The video proved he was plainly negligent for violating California Vehicle Code: Failure to Yield
to a Pedestrian.
The question was: what distracted Mr. Anderson such that he would drive directly into
two innocent pedestrians?
At his deposition, the driver testified that he simply did not see Cari and Kieran because he was
looking at pedestrians who had crossed in front of them. But this makes no sense because the
video clearly shows that all the pedestrians in the crosswalk were directly in front of him without
any visual obstructions.
Internally facing camera
A camera situated inside the cab captures Mr. Anderson’s activities immediately prior to the
incident.
The video shows Mr. Anderson obsessively shaking an aerosol can. We were able to discern
elements of the can’s label on the video. Mr. Anderson nervously takes the can with him while
stepping out to smoke a cigarette, out of view of the cameras.
Minutes later, he brings the can back inside the van, taking care to cover it up with his bag.
At his deposition, Mr. Anderson testified that this can was a degreaser used to clean the bottom
of his shoes. However, he could not coherently explain why he was carrying this degreaser
around with him. His testimony under oath, which is videotaped, was not credible.
Because we did not accept the driver’s deposition as truthful, Heinrich Law continued our
investigation. By further analyzing the product the driver was shaking, we learned that the
aerosol was a can of spray paint and not a degreaser.
The driver was getting high on an inhalant
We needed to understand why the driver was shaking this aerosol can. Our investigation led us
to understand the practice of “huffing.”
“Huffing” is a slang term for inhalant abuse. Spray paints and similar aerosol products contain
chemicals which create mind-altering effects. Abusers of inhalants typically spray the product
onto a paper towel, and then inhale the fumes.
The immediate effects of huffing resemble alcohol intoxication but occur within seconds rather
than minutes. The practice can cause dizziness and lightheadedness, confusion, loss of coordination, disorientation and hallucination in the short term. Long term effects include brain damage, the ability to think clearly, loss of coordination and vision and hearing loss.
We were confident that the evidence and investigation led to a clear reason for this life altering
incident, consistent with “huffing.”
Background of the driver: The driver was a convicted felon with drugs in his system at
the time of the incident
We also learned that the driver had at least two felony convictions, one for a drug offense and
one for forgery. A drug test completed after the incident showed marijuana and
methamphetamine in the driver’s system. The driver admitted to having used these drugs the
weekend prior.
We presented our evidence to Pilkington. We argued that the company knew, or should have
known, that the driver should not have passed the company’s background checks. Mr.
Anderson had no business being behind the wheel and should certainly have not been
employed as a commercial driver.
This case was resolved for $3.2 Million in favor of Heinrich Law’s clients Carol and Kieran
Harty.
If a loved one has been wrongfully killed, or you or a loved one has been seriously injured, please contact us. The consultation is free to you.