. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 140176

$________ GROSS - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION - NEGLIGENT PULL OUT FROM DRIVEWAY - ARM FRACTURE WITH OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION - MULTIPLE FRACTURES TO TRANSVERSE PROCESS OF LUMBAR SPINE - 20% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOUND.

Lake County

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver negligently pulled out of a shopping center into the path of the plaintiff’s on-coming motorcycle. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff caused the collision by speeding and not paying attention to traffic. The defense also denied that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury as a result of the collision.

The plaintiff was a 27-year-old male at the time of the accident. He testified that he was operating his motorcycle with the right-of-way within the legal speed limit when the defendant suddenly pulled out of the driveway of a shopping center across five travel lanes and drove into the path of his motorcycle. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert contended that the plaintiff had insufficient opportunity to avoid striking the back of the defendant’s vehicle.

The plaintiff’s physician testified that the plaintiff sustained a compound fracture of the forearm as a result of the accident. He underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture. The plaintiff also sustained four fractures of the transverse process bones in his lumbar spine. The plaintiff alleged that his accident-related injuries prevented him from returning to his prior employment as a carpenter and he remained unemployed at the time of trial.

The defendant presented the deposition testimony of two witnesses who alleged that they observed the plaintiff speeding and doing "wheelies" on his motorcycle several miles before colliding with the defendant’s car. The defense maintained that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to see and avoid defendant’s car as it crossed five travel lanes before the impact. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury as a result of the accident and disputed his claim for a future diminished earning capacity.

The jury found the defendant 80% negligent and the plaintiff 20% comparatively negligent. The jury also found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury as a result of the accident and awarded him $________ in damages which was reduced accordingly.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.