Beginning with Mr. Enriquez, Mr. Johnson first calculated the loss of support in wages and household services to his three surviving children. The total present value damages were $418,200. He then calculated the loss of household support that Ms. Ervetina Trujillo Tapia (a 65-year-old grandmother) would have provided to her adult children and grandchildren. The total present value damages were $428,600. Next, he calculated the economic support that could have been available to Andres Torres’ parents.

Lastly, he calculated Joseph Enriquez’s lost earning capacity and future medical expenses. Mr. Johnson estimated the earning capacity for two possible scenarios: the earnings of a high school graduate and of someone with 1 to 3 years of college. He also included the national average fringe benefits package equal to 29.0% of his wages. This yielded a total present value lost earning capacity that ranged from $1.6 to $1.8 million.

Mr. Johnson next reviewed the life care planner’s future medical plan for Joseph Enriquez. The life care planner determined that Joseph would need home attendant care or facility care to help with his profound injuries. The present value of his future medical care ranged between $6.7 - $7.9 million.

In the last part of his testimony, Mr. Johnson was asked to give his expert opinion as to the appropriate economic framework or guidelines which the loss of a person’s intangible value of life, items such as love, companionship could be estimated. He was also asked to discuss a systematic methodology for calculating a person’s loss of enjoyment of life using generally accepted methods of economic analysis.

Result: On February 5th, the jury awarded plaintiffs over $30 million from Goodyear. The jury awarded $14 million to Joseph Enriquez for his profound injuries, a total of $14 million to the families of Frank Enriquez, Torres and Trujillo and about $2.1 million to six passengers who suffered lesser injuries.

Attorney’s Comments: According to Plaintiffs’ attorney Chad A. Bowers, “Mr. Johnson’s testimony was paramount to our case. There were four plaintiffs in which he calculated economic damages. Each of them had unique circumstances for calculating their damages. He was able to easily explain to the jury each calculation that empowered them. You could see how the jury bonded with Mr. Johnson. It is not very common that you see that.”