. .

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 187370

$________ TOTAL – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – INTERSECTION COLLISION – PAROLE OFFICER ALLEGEDLY PROCEEDS INTO INTERSECTION WITH EMERGENCY SIGNALS ACTIVATED – IMPACT PROPELS HOST CAR INTO FAST FOOD RESTAURANT – HOST DRIVER SUFFERS SUBDURAL HEMATOMA, MILD COGNITIVE DEFICITS, TEMPORARY FACIAL PALSY AND VESTIBULAR DISTURBANCE – PASSENGER SUFFERS DOMINANT SHOULDER TEAR AND CLAVICLE FRACTURE.

Hudson County, NJ

This action involved a plaintiff husband/driver and his passenger/wife who were in their 70s. The plaintiffs maintained that as the plaintiff driver entered the intersection with a green light, and the host car was struck by the defendant, a parole officer, who failed to stop at the red light. The plaintiffs maintained that the host vehicle was struck at a high rate of speed and propelled into the side of an adjacent fast food restaurant. The defendant contended that his light was green. The defendant also maintained that he was responding to a call for assistance by another parole officer who was involved in an altercation with a client, that his emergency signals were activated, and that the cause of the collision was the negligent failure of the host driver to make proper observations.

The plaintiffs presented the deposition testimony of an independent eyewitness, a social services employee of Hudson County. The witness indicated that he observed the defendant traveling into the intersection at approximately 50 mph after approaching at that speed and that the defendant failed to slow before entering. The plaintiff’s witness also related that the defendant’s emergency signals were not activated. The eyewitness did not observe the color of the traffic light at the time.

The plaintiffs would have presented a police procedures expert who would have contended that the irrespective of the color of his traffic light, the parole officer failed to follow appropriate standards. The expert maintained that even if the parole officer’s signals were on and if his light was green, he was required to enter the intersection in a safe manner, and that based upon the testimony that he traveled into it at approximately twice the speed limit without slowing, it was clear that he failed to comply, especially in view of the fact that the area contained heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

The plaintiffs’ biomechanical engineer would have maintained that the physical damage, including the damage to the respective vehicles, was consistent with the host car entering the intersection within the speed limit and the defendant entering at a high rate of speed. Photographs taken at the scene by on-lookers reflected that the plaintiffs were both wearing their seatbelts and the plaintiff’s biomechanical engineer would have maintained that the plaintiffs’ injuries were consistent with the use of seatbelts.

The plaintiffs were rendered unconscious. The plaintiff driver/husband suffered a subdural hematoma, a vestibular imbalance, a resolving pneumothorax and facial palsy that caused temporary partial facial paralysis and which resolved without a heightened risk of recurrence.

This plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately one week and then spent approximately one month in a rehabilitation hospital. The plaintiff contended that he suffered a relatively mild, but permanent, cognitive deficit that affected concentration and memory and which was confirmed by a battery of neuropsychological testing.

The plaintiff wife maintained that she sustained a tear of the dominant shoulder and a clavicle fracture. She was hospitalized for approximately one week. The injuries were addressed conservatively. This plaintiff contended that she will permanently suffer pain and limitations.The case settled prior to trial for $________, including $________ to the plaintiff driver and $________ to the plaintiff passenger.

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.