Home › News › Conejo Valley
Trial in T.O. cyclist's death starts
Motorist admits fault; family seeks more monetary damages
Download this story as a podcast!
HOMICIDE MAP
Data from death certificates, law enforcement records and court documents, were used to create a searchable map detailing more than 10 years of county homicides.
Search map »
STORY TOOLS
More from Conejo Valley
The trial in the wrongful death of Glenn B. Garvin is under way in Ventura County Superior Court and is expected to go to the jury on Thursday.
Norma Seigel, 82, of Thousand Oaks, has said she was responsible for Garvin's death.
What is at issue in the trial, which began Friday, is the amount of some of the damages as a result of the accident.
Garvin, an avid bicyclist, was struck by a vehicle and killed Sept. 16, 2006, while riding along Westlake Boulevard. Garvin, 49, of Thousand Oaks, was also a popular dentist and member of the city's traffic advisory board, according to the suit.
Seigel was traveling north in her vehicle when witnesses said she swerved into the bicycle lane. Garvin suffered massive head injuries.
The lawsuit says Seigel's ophthalmologist told her eight days before the accident that she had cataracts in both eyes. The day before the accident and during another visit to her ophthalmologist, she was told that she had "dense cataracts" in both eyes.
Seigel agreed to $39,878 in damages to cover such things as medical expenses and funeral costs.
Garvin's lawyer, Mark Hiepler, and Seigel's lawyer, Robert Hanger, have stipulated to liability, which means what is at issue in the trial is money damages for the loss of Garvin's earnings, past and future.
He was an endodontist who had a very successful practice, earning about $746,633 in 2006, the lawsuit states.
Hiepler said the family lost a father and husband and the community lost a person who was dedicated to bicycle safety.
"There were more than 1,000 people at his funeral," said Hiepler.
Garvin and his wife, Pamela, were married for 25 years and had two children, Andrew, 16, and Reed, 12.
Hiepler said he can't discuss the amount of additional damages Garvin's family will be asking the jury to award at this time.
"This is an extremely tragic case," the lawsuit concludes. "A husband and father were prematurely taken from the lives of Pamela, Andrew and Reed Garvin, due to the negligence of defendant Norma Seigel. Damages in this case are extraordinary, due to the youth and wage-earning capability of Dr. Garvin."
Posted by xrl650 on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
indigogirl, at what age should these wonderful elderly people not be allowed to drive?
Posted by chuffer123 on October 30, 2007 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
xrl650, there is no specific age. Some 90 year olds may still be safe drivers; some 65 year olds have no business being on the road. I have an 80-something mother who is facing this very issue; she is a danger to herself and to others on the road, an opinion which I have shared with the Ohio DMV (where she lives). There should be mandatory re-testing, starting perhaps at 60 or 65; and concerned family members and medical professionals should be required to report potentially unsafe drivers, no matter the age. Losing the independence of driving is difficult; knowing that you killed (or even injured) someone because of your diminished abilities must be horrible.
Posted by kpez019 on October 30, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have tremendous respect for my elders, and the elderly community. With that said, I couldnt agree more with indigogirl and chuffer123. Some (not all) elderly drivers are simply not safe and those with vision issues, poor reflexes, etc simply should not be driving.
I was in a nasty car accident where my car was totalled (I was fine, thankfully) but the driver of the other vehicle was 82 years old, and ran a red light striking my car at 40 mph. A split second later and, well, I wouldnt have been all right.
Posted by ender21 on October 30, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Slowly but surely senior citizens are matching the accident rate that teenagers already have. They're *matching* it. That means that up till now teenagers have exceeded the accident rate of senior citizens, yet so far no one here has seen fit to say that teens "DO NOT belong behind the wheel of a moving vehicle." (At least not in this webspace)
Licensed teenagers are 22 times more likely to get a speeding ticket than those who are 65 years or older.
If you're going to suggest painting one age group with a broad brush when the statistics still point to a different age group as being even *more* dangerous behind the wheel, then where is the petition, drive, or propositions to get teens off the road?
Having said all that, by 2025 there will be 33 million people 70 years or older in the US. That segment will be growing 2.5 times the rate of the rest (longer lifespans, ya know) and will make up the lion's share of "turning left" and "rear end" (lower speed) accidents, that are inherently *less* dangerous statistically, but obviously not without fatalities.
With that in mind, I agree with chuffer123 that there needs to be mandatory re-testing with greater frequency as age or incident demands. But to say "all" of one type of person shouldn't be behind the wheel is a bit extreme.
Stats found through news.carjunky_dot_com.
Posted by citygirl on October 30, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
edner21, I agree with you. Its only going to get MUCH worse as the boomers hit the 80s and 90s. They will outnumber the teenagers.
Stricter regulations and testing should be instituted by the DMV for anyone under 21 and over 65.
The new handsfree cellphone law will take effect next year, this will help hopefully.
And what about all the teenagers that text message while they drive, whether they look at the phone or not while texting? What about people who read, fumble with onboard electronics, eat, apply makeup, etc while driving?
Posted by rebel123 on October 30, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There should be mandatory retesting of seniors and that testing needs to include a far more comprehensive eye exam than the DMV offers. However, once we decide that they should not be driving, our communities have to insure that there is ample affordable and convenient alternatives to get them out of their homes and to the places they need to be. Taking their licenses away without that will inevitably lead to isolation and depression. They need door to door service. Ojai has Help of Ojai vans that do this for our seniors. Other communities need to do the same. You can't just yank their licenses and say "take the bus".
Posted by horsespinner on October 31, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I ride skeleton cyn (westlake bvld) every other day. A lot of drivers cut into the bike lane. Mostly on right side curves. Maybe the traffic should slow down a little, it is not a freeway. Age did play a factor but so does the traffic speed. If we drove a little slower we may stay out of the bike lane...please try...you are a lot bigger and faster than me
(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.