Home › News › Other News
Jury awards $12.5 million in death of bicyclist
STORY TOOLS 
More from Other NewsA jury Friday awarded $12.5 million in damages to the family of a popular dentist killed in an accident while riding his bicycle last year.
Glenn Garvin, 49, an avid cyclist, was struck by a vehicle and killed Sept. 16, 2006, while riding along Westlake Boulevard. The Thousand Oaks resident was a member of the city's traffic advisory board and a bicycle safety volunteer.
His family filed a wrongful death suit against the driver, Norma Seigel, 82, of Thousand Oaks. The president of the Ventura County Bar Association said he believes Friday's award of damages is one of the highest ever involving a personal injury or wrongful death suit in Ventura County.
"I am not aware of one, off the top of my head, that can top that," said attorney and bar president Jonathan Light.
"That may be a record for the county. I don't know."
The Garvin family's lawyer, Mark O. Hiepler, praised the jury's decision.
"I am pleased a jury of conservative Ventura County people saw the value of the life of a father and husband and the value he brought to the community," said Hiepler.
In a prepared statement, wife Pamela Garvin, 50, said, "My husband, Glenn, was a volunteer traffic safety commissioner for the city of Thousand Oaks who taught and lived bicycle safety. His death ... as well as the deaths at the Santa Monica outdoor market, were all preventable and teach us that we must individually take responsibility for those we love, whether elderly or young, who should not be driving."
She was referring to a 2003 incident in which an 86-year-old man drove his car into a crowd at the Santa Monica market, killing nine people and hurting dozens. The man said he couldn't stop and hit his accelerator instead of the brake.
In the Garvin case, Seigel admitted she was responsible for the death, so the accident's cause wasn't an issue in the case. Instead, the trial focused on monetary damages.
Seigel's ophthalmologist told her eight days before the accident that she had cataracts in both eyes, according to Hiepler. The day before the accident and during another visit to her ophthalmologist, she was told she had "dense cataracts" in both eyes.
Seigel's lawyer, Robert Hanger, couldn't be reached for comment Friday.
Attorney Light believes the jury's award was large partly because Garvin had a large annual income -- future earnings the family will no longer receive.
Garvin was an endodontist who earned about $746,633 in 2006, according to the lawsuit.
"There was a loss of life. That's a big deal," Light said.
Hiepler said Seigel has insurance and assets, and another court hearing will determine whether it will be enough to satisfy the judgment.
The wrongful death trial lasted seven days in Superior Court in Simi Valley.
Friends of the deceased, financial experts, psychologists and family members testified. The jury began deliberating Thursday.
During closing arguments, Hiepler never specified to the jury how much should be awarded but suggested it should be a large, multimillion-dollar sum. Hiepler said Pamela Garvin is now a single parent of two teenage sons who struggles without her husband of 25 years. Seigel had agreed to $39,878 in damages to cover such things as medical expenses and funeral costs.
Posted by collegestudentforlife on November 2, 2007 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right. Do you really think this woman has the ability to pay $12.5 million dollars? I'm sure she's just waiting right outside the doors with her pen and checkbook in hand.
While the sentiment is nice, the fact that this family is going to feel "owed" for the rest of their lives is never going to allow them to fully heal. It's sad to me that they were "awarded" a sum that honestly, they'll probably never receive because of the unrealisitic nature of the judgment.
Posted by SomeonesSister on November 3, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
*****Garvin was an endodontist who earned about $746,633 in 2006, according to the lawsuit***
***Hiepler said Seigel has insurance and assets, and another court hearing will determine whether it will be enough to satisfy the judgment***
*************************************************
My bet is that "yes" the woman can handle the $12.5 even if she has to liquidate. I'm not so sure that $12.5 is realistic though but how can you place a monetary value on a loved one?
Even if she could only pay $1 million, she owes it. Ms. Seigel knew her eyes were failing her and she had no business on the streets. And judging by her 2006 annual income, I think she could afford a driver.
My Father took himself off the streets at age 71 when he felt his reaction time was deminishing. (His eyesite was still good) Bravo!
Our Seniors need to start taking responsibility for themselves and remove themselves from the streets. And if they don't, their family members must step in and do it for them. We LOVE our Seniors, but this is a public safety issue.
Posted by bluefairy on November 3, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A $12.5 million settlement? That is absolutely absurd!! Yes, I agree that there is no way to place a monetary value on a life. Yes, Ms. Siegel was aware of her failing sight. The Garvin family will forever have an un-fillable void, however 12.5 million is a little too far fetched.
I can only pray that I never have to step in either party's shoes.
God bless all families involved.
Posted by toofargone on November 4, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the most obsurd thing I have ever heard. Now I am all for taking elderly off the road. I hope this family feels better knowing that now they have lost their loved one, and they are getting back at the poor elderly lady who will more than likely loose EVERYTHING she worked hard for, for her ENTIRE life. I dont see how that compensates one for the other.
I really feel for both of these familys, more for the elderly lady.
Posted by SomeonesSister on November 4, 2007 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Poor" elderly woman... humm... With all due respect, I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who pull in $746,633 annually, as a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who pulls in $100K annually. And as much as I too believe $12.5 is an excessive amount, aren't we judged by our peers... and wasn't it her peers who awarded the $12.5 to the victims family? And finally after all.. aren't we all responsible for our own actions no matter what age we, by the grace of God, grow to be?
P.S. Isn't it obsurd that some men/women are only required to pay $135.00 per month child support for one child, but others are required to pay $35,000? It's the law of "relativity". What is relative to the case at hand and what is relative to the individuals means.
(I still believe $1mil is sufficient)
Posted by Ambz on November 4, 2007 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maybe I am completely blind here, but I see no where that it states HER annual income, only the victims. I also believe that money is above and beyond, but thats my opinion, and I am not in the same situation. She knew her eyes were failing and so she should have known that she wasn't fit to be behind the wheel, but 12.5?!??!?!?!
Posted by SomeonesSister on November 4, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Ambz---you are absolutely right...I totally mis-read who the stated salery applied to. I thought it to be "HER's" --- I do appologize to all for my oversite and think it might be time for me to get my eyes checked "again".
Well in this case... it looks like "SHE" likely will not be able to pay the victom's family a dime. Unless, as someone else stated, has good car and home owners insurance. Maybe she has stocks and bonds she can cash out.(?) I know money won't bring back a life, but one must pay something for their irresponsible actions. If not money... then what?
At the very least she needs to loose her drivers license and have her car auctioned off.
Posted by danp on November 5, 2007 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a lot of money, but I am sure the family knows what this woman is worth, and they took her for it. Maybe they should sue the state who issued the driver's license, they have plenty of money.
Posted by lisitsa on November 13, 2007 at 5:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just signed up to post this comment. Very intrusive signup procedure, but I just had to say that:
This woman should go to jail. People just don't want to take responsibility. You kill someone by your ignorance, you need to sit in a jail for a number of years. They family doesn't need money. They need to know theres a bit of order in this world, and that if someone stole a life from a man, the jail system should steal at least a few years of her life from her.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.