. .

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 186286

$________ ON FIRST DAY OF TRIAL – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/TRUCK COLLISION – MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY – DEFENDANT DRIVER OF PORT AUTHORITY PICK-UP TRUCK FAILS TO STOP AT RED LIGHT, STRIKING PLAINTIFF DRIVER AFTER EXITING BEN FRANKLIN BRIDGE – COLLISION CAPTURED ON BRIDGE'S VIDEO SYSTEM – SEVERE LOWER LEG CRUSH INJURY FRACTURES – INFECTION – GANGRENE – BELOW-THE-KNEE AMPUTATION DESPITE 12 SURGERIES – SURGICAL HARDWARE INSTALLATION – DAMAGES ONLY.

Philadelphia County, PA

This motor vehicle negligence action arose from a ________ collision which took place just after the plaintiff, en route to work, crossed the Ben Franklin Bridge from New Jersey to Philadelphia. The male plaintiff pick-up truck driver, age 51 at the time of the collision and age 55 at the time of the recovery, was a resident of New Jersey who was employed as a cement mason on the date of the accident, July 3, ________. The plaintiff contended that the defendant pick-up truck driver, while in the course of his employment and in a vehicle owned by the defendant transit corporation PATCO, negligently failed to stop at a red light, colliding with the side of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff maintained that he suffered severe lower right leg fractures consisting of comminuted tibia and fibula fractures, as well as a pilon fracture to the ankle. The plaintiff underwent a total of some 12 surgical interventions in a three to four-year period until requiring a below-the-knee amputation.

The defendants stipulated to negligence in causing the collision and the case proceeded on the issue of damages only.

The collision occurred approximately two blocks after the plaintiff crossed the Ben Franklin Bridge while en route to work and one of the bridge’s cameras, focused on the bridge apron, captured the accident. The plaintiff would have argued that although somewhat “grainy,” the video, in color, showed that the plaintiff entered the intersection with a green light and was broadsided by the defendant. The plaintiff’s truck was propelled into a concrete lane barrier as a result of the impact.

The plaintiff was transported to the hospital from the scene by ambulance and was diagnosed with a crush injury to his ankle and multiple fractures of his right leg and ankle. The plaintiff underwent a total of 12 surgeries including open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures and surgical debridements necessitated by infection. The plaintiff maintained that he suffered particularly severe compound, comminuted fractures that involved tibia and fibula, as well as a pilon fracture to the ankle on the same side. The plaintiff’s orthopedist would have related that several weeks after emergency surgery the day of the collision, the plaintiff underwent subsequent surgery with the surgical hardware installation of a plate and screws. The plaintiff’s orthopedist would have testified that because of the development of infection, the plaintiff then needed two debridements. The physician would have related that the plaintiff also required two surgeries in which external fixation devices were placed.

The plaintiff contended that he also developed a vascular compromise and that two vascular surgeries were not successful, resulting in toes becoming gangrenous. The plaintiff ultimately underwent a below-the-knee amputation after 12 surgeries had been performed over a three-and-a-half to four-year period.

The plaintiff related that he never considered himself "book smart," had not graduated high school, but was talented in physical work. The plaintiff contended that the loss of his leg prevented him from returning to his former employment as a cement mason and he is now limited to sedentary-types of employment and will earn a lesser salary than he previously earned. The plaintiff had been a cement mason for some years and contended that because of the injuries, he will permanently be unable to work. The plaintiff contended that he took great pride in his ability to work, and that the loss from the injuries was all-the-greater because of this aspect. The plaintiff sought approximately $________ in future lost wages. The plaintiff would have introduced evidence of approximately $________ in economic losses, including lost income and past and future medical bills.

The defense was expected to argue that the plaintiff had made a good recovery and was able to lead a nearly-normal life with a prosthetic leg. The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim for future lost wages.

The pre-trial offer of $________ was rejected. The defendant was covered by a $________ policy.

During the plaintiff’s opening statement, a juror fainted. The case settled for a total of $________ during the break caused by the fainting episode.

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.