$3.35 MILLION LAWSUIT ALLEGES ACCIDENT CAUSED BY FUNERAL HOME MISHANDLING OF PROCESSION

Transcription

1 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin W. Glass, Ill ; cell $3.35 MILLION LAWSUIT ALLEGES ACCIDENT CAUSED BY FUNERAL HOME MISHANDLING OF PROCESSION A Stafford County woman who attended a funeral held at Covenant Funeral Home in Fredericksburg, Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that injuries she sustained in a car accident were caused by the funeral home's failure to hire local law enforcement personnel to control traffic as the funeral procession exited the funeral home's parking lot. Jean Eustice claims that, rather than hire law enforcement to assist mourners at a very busy Route 1 intersection, the funeral home placed a young funeral home assistant with no experience or training in traffic control to control traffic in the middle of Route 1. The assistant held only a small, hand-held sign that directed traffic to either "slow" or "stop" and was dressed only in a dark suit and a raincoat. The lawsuit, which seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, was filed September 12, 2016, in the Circuit Court for the City of Fredericksburg. The accident took place on December 27, 2014, when a car being driven by Wyvetta Faye Deats, of Frederickburg, who is also a defendant in the case, struck Eustice's car, broad-side, in the intersection of Route 1 and Lassen Lane. Eustice had to be extracted from her car using the "jaws of life" and suffered multiple fractures and other injuries. Benjamin W. Glass, Ill, Eustice's attorney, said: This is a very dangerous intersection, particularly on a Saturday afternoon, and the funeral home should have had trained and experienced local law enforcement personnel to direct traffic. The local sheriff' s office does an excellent job of keeping funeral processions safe both for mourners and the general public. Putting an untrained young man who has never controlled traffic before in his life out there in the middle of Route 1 traffic, armed with nothing more than a small and confusing sign, recklessly endangered many lives. Eustice said: "I hope this lawsuit brings awareness of the dangers of funeral processions to the funeral home industry. Safety should not be shortcut." To schedule an interview with attorney Benjamin Glass, call A Q&A sheet on this case is available. ###

2 Questions and Answers about I. Jean Eustice's Lawsuit Against Covenant Funeral Service, Inc. and Wyvetta Faye Deats By: Virginia Personal Injury Attorney Ben Glass Why is this case important? Funeral procession accidents are increasingly common and tragically kill and injure drivers and police escorts across the US. Funeral processions started out as a respectful custom when traffic was lighter and slower. They are increasingly dangerous and largely irrelevant in this age of high-speed roadways and GPS devices that can help motorists arrive individually and safely for a graveside service. Think about it - no one wants their funeral procession to cause injury or death to another. No one wants to be remembered for that. Why is Covenant Funeral Service, Inc. responsible? Covenant performs hundreds of funeral services each year, and they regularly direct funeral processions from their parking lot onto Route 1 - so they know how dangerous that road can be. It's crowded and traffic flows very fast. As the lawsuit describes, Covenant made the decision to not involve law enforcement and to handle the traffic with its own employees, including the funeral home director. Covenant is also responsible for knowing the law - Covenant not only put someone out in the intersection who had no training and no experience, but they gave bad advice to mourners before they left the parking lot. Why was law enforcement not notified of this funeral? That answer is unclear at this point. Covenant has used law enforcement in the past and did so for another funeral earlier that day. It does so for funerals today and the local sheriff's office even positions cars across Route 1 traffic so that it is almost impossible for a Route 1 driver who is not paying attention to hurt someone in the procession. Why is Wyvetta. Faye Deats responsible? Drivers in Virginia are required to yield to funeral processions. Even though Covenant was wrong not to have a police escort, Deats missed the obvious signs of people standing in the road at the funeral home with "stop" signs and cars with their lights on exiting the parking lot in a procession. Drivers need to be alert and aware, and Deats was not, causing the accident that severely injured Jean Eustice. When will trial be held? The case is filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Fredericksburg. Trial is expected to be held in late 2017 or early 2018.

3

4 5. Covenant has operated a funeral home at 4801 Jefferson Davis Highway since One of the owner-operators of Covenant is John T. Mullins. 7. John T. Mullins has operated funeral homes and organized funeral processions in Virginia since The Covenant funeral home in Fredericksburg has a large parking lot capable of holding at least 210 vehicles. 9. In order to exit the funeral home parking lot after a funeral, cars must enter Lassen Lane and cross a small "access road" (Loren Drive) before either crossing over or turning onto U.S. Route I/Jefferson Davis Highway. 10. The intersection of Lassen Lane and U.S. Route I/Jefferson Davis Highway is a major intersection on a heavily travelled highway. 11. The intersection of Lassen Lane and U.S. Route I/Jefferson Davis Highway is governed by a four-way traffic signal. 12. The speed limit on Route I/Jefferson Davis Highway at the intersection of Route 1 and Lassen Lane is 45 miles per hour and vehicles routinely exceed 45 miles per hour on that part of Route 1. I. Jean Eustice Attends a Funeral at Noon at Covenant Fredericksburg 13. On Saturday, December 27, 2014 Plaintiff Eustice attended a funeral at Covenant Funeral Home. 14. The funeral was at 12:00 pm (noon) and lasted less than one hour. 15. The funeral was attended by at least 100 attendees/mourners all of whom arrived at the funeral home by vehicle. 2

5 16. When Ms. Eustice drove her car into the parking lot to attend the funeral she was asked by a Covenant employee who was standing in the parking lot whether she would be a part of the procession that, at the end of the funeral, would be heading to the grave site at Oak Hill Cemetery. 17. After telling the Covenant employee that she would be a part of the funeral procession heading to the grave site, Ms. Eustice was directed by the Covenant employee to park in an area of the funeral home parking lot that was separate from those cars/attendees that would not be going to the grave site when the funeral was over. 18. In planning the funeral procession from the funeral home to the burial site, Covenant and its employees knew that mourners would be exiting the parking lot in their vehicles, heading onto Lassen Lane, driving through the intersection with Route 1 and turning left to head north on Route 1 towards the burial site. 19. In planning the mourners' travel path through the intersection and to the burial site Covenant deliberately and consciously planned to use no law enforcement personnel for traffic control and instead planned to use one of its owners and another employee with no training or experience in traffic control to attempt to assume the control of traffic on this very busy highway by: a. Attempting to stop high-speed traffic on Route 1, and b. Directing mourners to proceed through the intersection. The Funeral Ends Just Before 1:00 P.M. and Mourners Head to the Grave Site 20. Following the funeral Plaintiff Eustice returned to her car to await direction and advice from Covenant employees as to how she should safely join and follow the funeral procession to the grave site. 3

6 21. Covenant employees undertook to give those directions to Plaintiff Eustice and other mourners leaving the funeral. 22. Prior to any cars leaving the parking lot, one of the owner-operators of Covenant, John T. Mullins, acting on behalf of and with full knowledge of Covenant, walked into the middle of intersection and proceeded to attempt to stop traffic on both the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 1 traffic. 23. Mullins attempted to stop northbound and southbound traffic by holding up a small hand-held sign that said STOP on one side and SLOW on the other. 24. Once traffic stopped Mullins called to another funeral home employee, James Bryant, and told Bryant to come into the intersection to take Mullins' place so that Mullins could drive the hearse to the burial site. 25. Bryant had only been employed at Covenant since August, had no training in traffic control, had no experience in traffic control and protested to Mullins that he did not know what to do. Mullins told Bryant "it' s no big deal, just go out there and wing it." 26. At the time Bryant took over traffic control of both the north and southbound traffic on the busy Route 1 highway he was wearing a dark suit and a black raincoat and carrying the STOP/SLOW sign handed to him by Mullins. 27. At the time he took over traffic control for both the north and southbound lanes of the Route 1 highway, Bryant knew not only that he had never done this before, but that holding a sign that said STOP on one side and SLOW on the other would be, at the very least, confusing to those highway drivers who faced the SLOW sign. 28. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, neither Mr. Mullins nor Mr. Bryant had any legal authority, nor the appropriate training, experience or safety equipment, to walk into the middle of 4

7 a very busy highway on a Saturday afternoon and attempt to stop high speed traffic, that at times would be facing a green traffic signal, so that a funeral procession they were directing could travel through the intersection without causing death and injury to either the public travelling on Route I or mourners leaving the funeral in a funeral procession. 29. Defendant Covenant, through its employees, including Mullins and Bryant, knew or should have known that: a. While it would be "controlling" the intersection the automatic traffic lights overhead would still be rotating through their usual sequence of "green, amber and red" while high speed traffic on Route 1 was travelling toward the intersection; b. Drivers driving on Route 1 and approaching the intersection at a high rate of speed would have no advanced warning that a funeral procession was proceeding through the intersection no matter what color the lights on the automatic traffic lights were displaying; c. Mourners leaving the funeral would be relying on directions and instructions from Covenant and its employees as to when and how they could safely proceed through the intersection; d. Covenant should have notified law enforcement of the fact that a funeral procession would be attempting to cross Route I just before 1 :00 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon. e. Covenant's attempt to take it upon itself (through untrained employees in dark suits and raincoats holding small STOP/SLOW hand signs) to stop highway traffic and to direct a funeral procession through a busy intersection had a high probability of causing death or injury. 30. As they stood in the middle of this very busy highway attempting to stop high speed traffic, both Mr. Mullins and Mr. Bryant wore normal winter attire, including dark coats, but wore and carried no safety equipment, reflective or retroreflective material which would have made them more highly visible to motorists traveling on U.S. Route 1. 5

8 31. Although Mr. Mullins and Mr. Bryant were attempting, on behalf of Covenant, to stop high speed traffic neither they, nor any other Covenant employee placed or even attempted to place any signage or warning devices on Route 1 that would warn vehicles traveling on Route 1 that a funeral procession would shortly be proceeding through the intersection. 32. Although Mr. Mullins and Mr. Bryant were attempting, on behalf of Covenant, to stop high speed traffic neither they, nor any other Covenant employee, placed or even attempted to place any vehicles across the travel lanes of the highway to act as a safety barrier for the funeral procession that Mullins and Bryant were directing to cross the Route 1 Highway, as would have been done by trained law enforcement personnel. 33. Even though Covenant knew that the funeral Plaintiff attended would be ending just before 1 :00 p.m., Covenant made no attempt to alert law enforcement personnel of that fact so that the intersection could be made safe for the public, including mourners leaving the funeral. 34. Prior to having Mr. Mullins and Mr. Bryant stand in the middle of the highway directing traffic through the intersection, Covenant did not seek to alert, borrow, or employ any local law enforcement personnel in order to control the intersection even though Covenant, Mullins and Bryant knew: a. Route 1 is a busy, high-speed highway. b. Drivers travelling on Route 1 would be facing a green traffic signal at times while the funeral procession was traveling through the intersection. c. They would be directing mourners through the busy intersection even though the funeral procession would be crossing Route 1 when the traffic signal was, at times, red. d. Law enforcement was available to be used by Covenant and in fact Covenant had often used local law enforcement personnel in the past to ensure the safety of both mourners traveling in a funeral procession and motorists travelling on Route 1, including at a funeral held earlier that morning at Covenant. 6

9 e. That it planned to advise funeral home mourners who would be travelling to the burial site that they could safely travel through the intersection regardless of what color the traffic lights were. f. Bryant and Mullins had absolutely no training or experience in traffic control and took over traffic control at the intersection without any legal authority to do so. 35. Prior to the funeral procession entourage heading through the intersection now being "controlled" only by the untrained and inexperienced Mr. Bryant, a third funeral home employee ("John Doe") gave specific verbal and visible (i.e. they "waived them through") instructions to Plaintiff Jean Eustice and others who were in line to join the procession heading to the burial ground. 36. The instructions given to mourners who were traveling in the funeral procession by John Doe, with the full knowledge and consent of Covenant were as follows: a. Turn your headlights on; b. Tum on your emergency flashers; c. Follow the car in front of you, and; d. Follow our directions. 37. The Covenant employees, including John Doe, thus began to direct a long line of mourners through the very large and busy intersection leading from the funeral home parking lot intending that the procession would turn left on Route 1 and head northbound towards Oak Hill Cemetery. 38. Despite the fact that Covenant employees knew that it was highly dangerous to direct traffic through the intersection without regard to the color of the traffic light which controlled the intersection, they did so because they believed that the untrained and inexperienced Bryant had the intersection "safely under control." 7

10 39. The funeral party proceeded first through the intersection along with several cars and other vehicles which were led by a hearse now being driven by Mullins, who has abandoned his previous post as traffic director of the busy intersection. 40. After the funeral party vehicles had passed the line of mourners waiting to join the procession, Covenant employees directed the line of vehicles occupied by mourners, including the Plaintiff, to follow closely and to proceed through the intersection because the Covenant employees thought that it was safe to do so. 41. Plaintiff Eustice was the first car in line behind the funeral party as the funeral procession left the funeral home parking lot and entered the intersection. 42. As Plaintiff Eustice approached the intersection she was waved through the intersection by a Covenant employee who felt it was safe for the Plaintiff to proceed. employees. 43. Plaintiff Eustice relied on the directions and instructions of the Covenant 44. As Plaintiff Eustice entered the intersection Defendant Wyvetta Faye Deats was traveling in her car southbound on Route At that time and place Defendant Deats failed to see that: a. A funeral home procession was crossing Route I; and b. At least one funeral home employee was standing in the middle of southbound lanes of Route I directing traffic. 46. Defendant Deats proceeded through the intersection at a high rate of speed hitting Plaintiff Eustice's car and causing her severe and permanent injuries and causing her to incur medical expenses both in the past and in the future. 8

11 Allegations of Negligence 47. Defendant Covenant was negligent in at least the following ways: a. Failing to alert, local law enforcement that a funeral would be ending and that a procession of traffic would be trying to cross southbound Route 1 before turning left to head north to the burial ground, in order that law enforcement personal could make the intersection safe for the public by: 1. Taking control of the automatic traffic lights so that they did not show "green" to traffic heading on Route 1 while mourners were proceeding across the intersection; 11. Providing additional visual and audible warning devices so that high speed Route 1 traffic would be alerted to the fact that a funeral home procession was crossing the intersection. b. Failing to have trained law enforcement personnel on site to control the intersection and provide additional safety measured to visibly and audibly warn motorists travelling on Route 1 that a funeral procession was travelling through the intersection. c. Directing first, one of its owners, and then an employee with absolutely no training or experience in traffic control to head out the middle of a very busy highway intersection in plain clothes and carrying a confusing hand-held sign and expecting that this heavily travelled intersection would be made safe for a funeral procession to travel through. d. Failing to otherwise make the intersection safe for passage of the funeral procession by signage, lighting, and barricades. e. Directing those in the funeral procession, including Plaintiff Eustice, through the intersection even though it was not safe to do so. 48. Defendant Covenant's negligence as outlined above was willful and wanton because it and its employees knew or should have known that the conscious decisions its employees made, as outlined above, which was all authorized by Covenant, in organizing and directing the funeral procession through the intersection and in failing to hire or alert local law enforcement, were made with full knowledge of the fact that their decisions and actions would probably cause injury or death. 9

12 49. Defendant Deats was negligent in failing to pay full time and attention to her driving and in travelling through the intersection at a high rate of speed in total disregard of the fact that a funeral procession was travelling through the intersection. 50. Both defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as each of their acts of negligence caused injury to the Plaintiff. Amount Sued For WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Three Million Dollars and no/100 ($3,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and, against defendant Covenant only, Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) in punitive damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and her costs. TRIAL BY JURY IS HEREBY DEMANDED. Respectfully submitted, I. Jean Eustice By Counsel Be.. W. Glass, III (VSB 23152) s S. Abrenio (VSB 76442) njamin W. Glass, III & Associates, P.C Old Lee Highway, Suite 22B Fairfax, VA Tel Fax