|
Delsignore v. Rudolf — Settlement in Case Against Parents Who Gave Reckless Driver Son
a Sports Car and Racing Lessons.
On March 4, 2003, our client, a twenty-one-year-old college student, suffered serious
permanent injuries when the car she was riding in was struck by a high-performance BMW-M3
automobile driven by the defendants' son, John Rudolf. At the time of the accident, John was
attempting to outrun two police cruisers that were pursuing him for a minor traffic violation. During
his attempt to flee, he ran several red lights, weaved in and out of traffic, and eventually drove
hundreds of yards on the wrong side of the road at high speed crashing the BMW head-on into a
Honda Accord driven by the twenty-three-year-old friend and roommate of our client. Kelly Jean
Delsignore suffered serious and permanent injuries that resulted in an extended hospitalization,
multiple surgeries, and permanent physical disability.
Our investigation revealed that the BMW-M3 was owned by the driver's father. Prior to the
accident the college-age driver had amassed thirteen traffic violations (including six speeding tickets),
three at fault accidents, six license suspensions as a habitually dangerous driver, and one license
revocation. He was arrested for operating under the influence on November 16, 2002, only a few months
before the crash.
To successfully prove a case of negligent entrustment, it had to be shown that the young man's
parents knew that he was a dangerous driver when they purchased the BMW for his use. We argued that
they not only knew, but they condoned his reckless driving by buying him the BMW-M3 and then paying
over $26,000 for race car driving courses at a professional car racing school. In fact, they sent him to
racing school while his license was under suspension.
The driver's father, Manfred Rudolph, claimed in his deposition that he terminated his son John's
driving privileges two weeks prior to the crash when he learned for the first time of the November 2002
drunk driving arrest. Relying on this testimony, the defendants moved for summary judgment claiming
that the son did not have permission to drive the BMW-M3 on the day of the fatal crash.
Only a thorough investigation could disprove the father's self-serving claims.
We subpoenaed the family's bank records and discovered that the day after the drunk driving
arrest the defendant father wrote a $3,000 check to a William Smith. The criminal docket in the drunk
driving case showed that William Smith was an attorney that represented his son at his arraignment.
In response to these revelations, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that when he wrote
the check to William Smith he thought that Smith was an auto mechanic who had done work on the car.
He reiterated his statement from his deposition that he was unaware of the drunk driving arrest and
license suspension.
Finding this story equally incredible, we dug deeper and obtained the police reports and
audio-videotape of the November 2002 arrest and booking. The tape revealed that within one
hour of his arrest John called his mother from the Police Station and asked whether he should
submit to a blood alcohol test.
Based on this new evidence, we filed a Supplemental Memorandum arguing that his
parents undoubtedly knew of the arrest. The evidence directly contradicted the mother's
deposition testimony that she did not know about the arrest until after the accident.
Rather than face the simple truth, the defendant submitted yet another sworn affidavit
claiming he had no knowledge of any phone conversation that his wife may have had with their
son on the night of his arrest. He reiterated that he did not learn of the arrest until February 2003
when he allegedly terminated his son's permission to drive his cars. His wife also submitted an
affidavit stating that she had taken sleeping pills and had no memory of the call.
We retained an audiologist to professionally enhance the inaudible portions of the phone
conversation from the Police Station. The enhanced tape revealed that after hanging up the phone
on the night of his arrest, John told the booking officer that he "talked with my parents" and they
were not sure whether he should submit to the Breathalyzer test.
Armed with this evidence, Kreindler lawyers took the offensive and filed a motion for
judgment on the ground that the defendants had committed a fraud on the court by presenting
perjured testimony. The Court ruled that we presented a prima fascia case of fraud on the court
and ordered that an assistant district attorney be present at trial to determine whether a charge of
perjury would be appropriate.
Shortly after this ruling, counsel for the defendants offered and the plaintiff accepted $1.4
million in full settlement of the claims. Settlement with a co-defendant brought the total
settlement amount to $1.65 million.
John Rudolf is currently serving a six to ten year prison term for manslaughter.
The case was handled by Anthony Tarricone and Joe Musacchio.
|
