. .

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 195403

$________ – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – INTERSECTION COLLISION – OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES – DRUNK DRIVING – HIT AND RUN – CERVICAL AND LUMBAR DISC INJURIES – DAMAGES/CAUSATION ONLY.

Luzerne County, PA

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .________, and pulled out in front of the plaintiff’s pick-up truck, thereby causing a collision. The defendant stipulated to negligence at the time of trial, and the case proceeded on the issues of damages and causation only. The tree service company – which employed the defendant driver – was also named as a defendant in the case on a vicarious liability theory, and the allegation of negligent entrustment of a corporate truck to the defendant driver.

On Tuesday November 3, ________, at approximately 8:30 p.m., the plaintiff and his wife were on their way home. The plaintiff, a man in his early 40s at the time, was driving a pick-up truck southbound on Cherry Street (Route ________) in Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The defendant had been at work and was driving a company-owned truck. The defendant turned onto Cherry Street into the plaintiff’s lane of travel and violently collided with the side of the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant had drank more than 12 to 15 beers before the collision and had a blood alcohol level of .________ at the time of the impact.

The defendant driver fled the scene, but was eventually apprehended by Montrose police. When the police officer pulled the defendant over, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant could not stand due to his high level of intoxication at the time.

The court determined that the defendant driver was in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant corporation at the time of the collision. The plaintiff claimed that the corporate defendant knew – or should have known – that the defendant driver was intoxicated at the time it allowed him access and control of the vehicle it owned. The plaintiff also asserted that the corporate defendant should have known that the defendant driver had a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse, such that there was a reasonable likelihood that he would operate the corporate vehicle at a time when he was intoxicated.

The plaintiff was transported to the emergency room following the accident where he was diagnosed with cervical and lumbosacral nerve root injury at the C6-C7 and L5-S1 levels. MRI films revealed disc bulging and protrusions at the L2-L3 and L3-L4 and L4-L5 levels with evidence of foraminal narrowing, according to evidence offered by the plaintiff. Cervical MRIs also showed disc protrusions at C3-C4 and C6-C7 with cervical spondylosis and straightening of the cervical spine.

The plaintiff’s doctors causally related the plaintiff’s neck and back conditions to the subject accident.

The plaintiff’s pain management expert estimated that the plaintiff will require conservative medical treatment costing $________ to $________ per year; with an additional $________ to $________ should his condition become surgical.

Although he could not work for a period of time, the plaintiff eventually became the owner and operator of a bowling alley. The plaintiff’s wife asserted a claim for loss of consortium.

The corporate defendant argued that, prior to being allowed to drive a company vehicle, its drivers have their motor vehicle record checked, are given a drug test and review and sign the company safety policy. The defendant maintained that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim of negligent entrustment or punitive damages against the corporate defendant.

The defendant’s medical expert opined that the plaintiff sustained only temporary cervical and lumbar sprains as a result of the accident. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s diagnostic films of the cervical and lumbar spine were negative for any bony pathology.The jury found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury as a result of the accident and awarded him $________ in damages. The jury also found that the defendant acted outrageously, so as to warrant punitive damages.

After the verdict was announced, and before the punitive damage phase began, the defendant corporation’s insurance carrier agreed to settle the case for a total of $________, which the plaintiffs accepted as a full resolution.

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.