. .

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 194859

$________ – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/BUS COLLISION – FAILURE OF DEFENDANT DRIVER OF SENIOR CITIZEN BUS TO STOP AT STOP SIGN – PLAINTIFF DRIVER SUFFERS TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURES THAT REQUIRE BOTH OPEN REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION AND EXTERNAL FIXATION DEVICE.

Monmouth County, NJ

The female plaintiff driver, approximately age 60 years old at the time of the accident, contended that the defendant driver of a Monmouth County Senior Citizen Transport bus negligently failed to obey a stop sign to the plaintiff’s left, resulting in the front of the plaintiff’s car striking the wheel well of the bus. The plaintiff maintained that the force transmitted through the brake, caused particularly severe fractures to the right tibia and fibula that required both internal and external fixation. The plaintiff, who is a diabetic, had a very difficult recuperation period, suffered multiple infections, and required five surgeries. The plaintiff, who never married, maintained that she had always been a very independent individual, was a vice president of a financial company in New York City, and that because of the injuries, she could no longer live alone, moving in with her nephew and her family. The plaintiff supported that because of the injuries, she will permanently require home attendant care.

The defendant would have maintained that the plaintiff was speeding, and failed to make adequate observations, contributing to the collision. The plaintiff presented an independent eyewitness who would have denied that the plaintiff was speeding, and pointed to the findings of the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction, that the extensive damage to the exterior front of the plaintiff’s car reflected the manner in which the properly designed car crumpled when striking the bus wheel well, and was not indicative of excessive speed on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pointed out that except for blood from the right leg fractures that occurred when the force was transmitted though the brake, the interior of the car was pristine.

The plaintiff contended that she suffered comminuted tibia and fibula fractures and that the plaintiff , who had both an ORIF and an external fixation had a very difficult recuperation period, and was non-weight baring for approximately six months.

The plaintiff also had a series of infections and required numerous hospitalizations for IV antibiotics and surgery.

The plaintiff supported that it was apparent when she was ready to be discharged, that she would be unable to reside alone, and the plaintiff moved in with her adult nephew, and his family.

The defendant maintained that in view of the plaintiff’s history, her claim that the subject accident was the major cause of her complaints should be rejected. The defendant established that the plaintiff suffered renal failure and almost died during a prior Swine Flu bout, and conceded that she did not totally regain her stamina. The defendant also pointed out that the plaintiff, who required a prior knee replacement, had a handicap sticker prior to the accident, and that a cane was in her car.

The plaintiff maintained that despite the prior issues, she was able to return to 25-30 hours per week at her financial job in New York City. The plaintiff related that she commuted by bus and contended that in view of the evidence that she had been able to do so, despite the prior difficulties, it was clear that she was functioning relatively well.

The plaintiff maintained that she would like to live in her own premises, but will be unable to do so without an attendant, and also contended that she can no longer work, and that she would have worked for several more years if she had it not been for the subject collision.

The plaintiff would have introduced evidence of approximately $________ in the costs of home care and lost wages.The case settled prior to trial for $________.

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.