TRUCK ACCIDENT LITIGATION
Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Boston, MA
The plaintiff, nine months pregnant at the time of the accident, alleged that my 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 who 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 primary defense theory was that the accident was unavoidable. The defendants 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 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.
Prior to trial, the demand was $25 million, which was reduced to $15 million at trial. The plaintiff sought treble damages for alleged violations of the Consumer Protective Statute. The last offer was $1,000,000.00.
The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of my client.
Jurisdiction: Worcester Superior Court, Worcester, MA
The plaintiff, while operating her motor vehicle, alleged that she was rear-ended by the defendant tractor-trailer driver. According to the plaintiff, she was taking a right-hand turn when the defendant driver struck the left rear of her vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in following too closely and exceeding the speed limit.
The primary defense theory was that the motor vehicle accident was a simple accident without fault. The defense focused on the fact that the plaintiff, after turning off the roadway, stopped before she completed her turn, resulting in the rear of her vehicle sticking out in traffic. The tractor-trailer operator, despite his best efforts, was unable to avoid striking the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle.
Cervical fusion surgery to a 37-year-old at C4-C5, C5-C6 levels. It was undisputed that the plaintiff had no prior cervical symptoms or treatment.
The plaintiff alleged ongoing pain and suffering, loss of range of motion, loss of business opportunities, and inability to care for her minor son where she was a divorced single mother. The plaintiff claimed that her damages exceeded $1 million.
During jury deliberations, the plaintiff reduced her demand to $210,000.00. The last offer was $200,000.00. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $60,000.00, which was the total value of her medical bills.
Jurisdiction: Middlesex Superior Court, Cambridge, MA
The plaintiff, a passenger in a moving truck, sued my client, the defendant tractor-trailer driver, alleging that the tractor‑trailer driver was negligent in leaving his vehicle at the side of the highway causing a hazard to traffic.
Prior to the motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff, the defendant tractor-trailer driver jackknifed and slid off the wet roadway into the breakdown lane. The plaintiff, a passenger in a truck operated by a coworker, testified that the tractor-trailer jackknife caused an obstruction in the roadway. He testified that the operator of the moving truck was forced to swerve into the breakdown lane, striking a parked vehicle.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant tractor-trailer driver violated state and federal regulations with regard to placing cones, flares, and triangles to warn oncoming traffic of a disabled vehicle. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant tractor-trailer driver violated Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and state regulations regarding moving tractor-trailers after an accident.
The defense theory focused on the fact that the accident involving the jackknifed tractor-trailer was unavoidable due to the traffic and weather conditions at the time of the accident. Moreover, the principal defense theory was that the tractor-trailer jackknifed away from the travel lanes and, therefore, did not present a hazard to other vehicles on the highway. An argument was also presented that the defendant tractor-trailer driver did not have sufficient time to exit his vehicle to place warnings and cones in the roadway.
The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of my 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 street 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.