TRUCK ACCIDENTS
Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Boston, MA
The plaintiff, nine months pregnant at the time of the accident, alleged that our client, a tractor-trailer driver, was negligent causing a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, while operating a small compact vehicle, entered a highway north of Boston when she lost control of her vehicle and spun out on to the highway. The plaintiff alleged that the tractor-trailer driver had ample opportunity to visualize and take evasive actions to avoid striking the plaintiff's motor vehicle.
The plaintiff called a state trooper to the stand who testified that he interviewed the tractor-trailer driver after the accident and stated that he was operating his tractor-trailer at 65 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. In addition, the plaintiff retained an accident reconstructionist who testified that the tractor-trailer driver had seven to eight seconds to react and avoid the accident. The plaintiff also introduced testimony that the tractor-trailer driver's accident report indicated he did not slow down or take any evasive action to avoid the accident.
The primary defense theory was that the accident was unavoidable. We retained an accident reconstructionist to establish that the tractor-trailer driver, considering the distances and time involved, did not have enough time to perceive and react to the hazard of the plaintiff vehicle entering the roadway.
There were two plaintiffs in the suit. The mother, a 33-year-old female, sustained multiple pelvic fractures and crush injuries. The mother was 9 months pregnant at the time of the accident and, due to a placental abruption, her baby was born via an emergency C-section. The second plaintiff was the newborn infant.
Due to the trauma involved in the motor vehicle accident, the newborn infant sustained hypoxic ischemia, liver and renal dysfunction, global developmental disorder, cerebral palsy, microchepaly and mental retardation. At the time of the trial, she was two and a half years old and was non-ambulatory.
The undisputed life care plan for the minor child ranged from $7.7 million to $9.2 million. The undisputed lost earning capacity was $1,465,092.00. The undisputed medical bills for both plaintiffs exceeded $258,000.00 at the time of the trial.
At trial, the demand was $15,000,000 and the offer was $1,000,000. We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of our client.
Jurisdiction: Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, MA
The plaintiff, while rollerblading in Boston, was struck by a fuel delivery truck operated by the defendant corporation. The plaintiff claimed that he was rollerblading along the side of the fuel truck when, as he crossed a sidewalk, was struck by the fuel delivery truck as it turned into the path of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant truck driver was negligent and failed to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
The defense theory focused on the fact that the plaintiff, contrary to his testimony, was not traveling along the side of the fuel delivery truck, but rather was coming down the hill onto which the fuel truck driver was turning. The defense was that the accident was unavoidable where the driver of the truck did not have sufficient time to see and react to the presence of the plaintiff rollerblading head-on into the path of travel of the truck.
As a result of the accident, the fuel truck struck the plaintiff causing the plaintiff to be thrown down to the roadway in front of the front tire of the fuel truck which ran over the plaintiff’s lower leg crushing his tibia and fibula. At the scene, a pedestrian was able to save the plaintiff’s life by removing his belt and using it as a tourniquet on the plaintiff’s leg.
At the hospital, initially it was believed that the lower leg required amputation. The plaintiff was referred, however, for a second opinion. The plaintiff had an operation known as an Ilizarov procedure whereby the crushed bone is removed and new bone is grown.
The plaintiff, an emergency room triage nurse, alleged lost wages in the amount of approximately $350,000.00 and had incurred approximately $150,000.00 in medical bills. The last demand was 1.5 million and the last offer was $450,000.00. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client.
Jurisdiction: Middlesex Superior Court, Cambridge, MA
This case involved a rear end accident in which our client, the defendant truck driver, rear ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff was approximately 56 years old at the time of the accident and had been earning in excess of $50,000.00 a year with plans to work an additional eight to ten years. As a result of the collision she claimed that she was in need of surgery of herniated discs at two levels. She had three back surgeries post-accident.
We claimed that this was a low impact collision and did not cause the injuries. There was no dispute that the plaintiff had herniated discs that were in need of the surgery. The primary issue was causation.
We retained a bio-mechanist and a neurosurgeon to review numerous medical records and diagnostic films prior to the accident. A helpful consultant was a neuroradiologist who reviewed pre-accident films in order to compare them to the post accident films. The defense was that the herniated discs that required the surgery was the result of a prior condition. Her condition was substantially similar prior to the accident.
The plaintiffs submitted in excess of $150,000.00 in medical specials. The demand never went below one million dollars and after one and a half week jury trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client on negligence.
It had been the defendants' position that despite this rear end collision that the plaintiff pulled in front of the defendant truck driver from a parking spot. There were numerous witnesses offered by the plaintiffs to controvert that, but the witnesses were not found to be credible and it was the defense's suspicion these witnesses were actually tampered with by the plaintiffs and their lawyers.