. .

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 186275

DEFENDANT’S Motor Vehicle Negligence – Intersection Collision – Alleged failure to maintain lane during turn – Sprain and strain injuries to lower back claimed.

Philadelphia County, PA

The plaintiff, a female in her mid-40s, alleged that the defendant failed to maintain her lane while making a left turn and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff struck the back of her vehicle as she was in the process of making a left turn.

Evidence showed that both the plaintiff and defendant were traveling on Albert Einstein Drive in Philadelphia at a location where it dead ends into Broad Street. The plaintiff was in the right lane to make a right turn and the defendant was in the left lane to make a left turn onto Broad Street.

The case was tried under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure ________.1, capping damages at $________ and allowing admission of the plaintiff’s medical records and reports in lieu of live medical testimony. The plaintiff claimed sprain and strain injuries to her lumbar spine as a result of the collision. The plaintiff, as well as a passenger in her vehicle, testified that the defendant’s car entered their lane and struck the left front of their vehicle with the right front of her car.

The defendant testified that she was driving in the left lane and was making a left turn onto Broad Street when she heard a noise from behind her vehicle. The defendant testified that she looked out her passenger side mirror and saw that the plaintiff’s car was wedged against her rear tire.

The defendant’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the plaintiff’s version of the accident was inconsistent with the laws of physics; but the defendant’s version matched the physical evidence from the scene. The investigating police officer opined that the back of the defendant’s car fishtailed into the right lane as she was turning left. The defendant’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the defendant’s car could only have fishtailed if it were traveling at a fast rate of speed. The defense argued that the evidence did not indicate that the defendant was traveling at such a high speed.The jury found that the defendant was not negligent. The case was appealed by the defendant from an arbitration award for the plaintiff.

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.