ARTICLE ID 168455
$1 AGAINST THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT - ATV/PICK- UP TRUCK COLLISION - ATV DRIVER LEAPS TO SAFETY SECONDS BEFORE IMPACT - TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURES TO MINOR ATV PASSENGER - OPEN REDUCTION - INTERNAL FIXATION.
Lancaster County, PA
The plaintiff, a 15-year-old male at the time of injury,
was riding as a passenger on the back of an ATV driven by the
defendant Kyle Fisher. The ATV struck the back of a camouflage-
painted pick-up truck owned by the co-defendant, Fishers Garage,
a business owned by the defendant Kyle Fishers father. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Kyle Fisher, negligently
operated the ATV and that the defendant, Fishers Garage, failed
to maintain the rear lights of the pick-up truck, thereby causing
the accident. The defendants argued that the accident was caused
when the plaintiffs 11-year-old brother shined a deer spotlight
in Fishers eyes while he was driving the ATV, temporarily
blinding him and causing the ATV to strike the pick-up truck. The
plaintiffs younger brother was named as an additional defendant
in the case.
On June 30, ________, at approximately 10:00 p.m. the plaintiff,
Matthew Burkholder, was a passenger on the back of an ATV driven
by the defendant, Kyle Fisher. The youths were in a rural area of
Tioga County and were engaged in a practice known as "spotting"
deer. Deer spotting involves shining a bright light on deer and
"freezing" them for observation. The boys were accompanying a
camouflage-colored pick-up truck, owned by the defendant,
Fishers Garage. The plaintiffs younger brother, Nathan
Burkholder, was riding in the back of the pick-up truck and was
operating a six million candle power spotlight to spot the deer.
Burkholders parents were not present at the scene.
Testimony established that the third party defendant shined the
spotlight onto the ATV, temporarily blinding Kyle Fisher and the
ATV struck the back of the pick-up truck which was stopped on the
dirt road in front of it. The plaintiff alleged that the rear
lights of the pick-up truck were not functioning and that the
defendant owner failed to warn the driver of the truck of the
defect. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant, Kyle
Fisher, operated the ATV in a negligent manner, was traveling at
an excessive speed and leaped from the vehicle just before the
impact occurred. The minor plaintiff remained on the ATV as it
struck the back of the truck.
The plaintiff sustained multiple fractures to his tibia and
fibula as a result of the collision. He underwent open reduction
and internal fixation of the fracture. The plaintiff testified
that he experiences leg pain upon strenuous activity. The
plaintiff made no claim for economic damages.
The defendants, Kyle Fisher and Fishers Garage, maintained that
the action of the third party defendant, in shining the deer
spotlight into Kyle Fishers eyes while he was operating the ATV,
temporarily blinded him and caused the collision. The defendant
contended that the plaintiffs brother was told to take the
spotlight off the ATV, but failed to do so. In addition,
testimony established that the third party defendant had been
previously instructed that the powerful light could blind drivers
and never to shine it on motorists.
The defense maintained that there was no evidence to support the
plaintiffs contention that the tail lights of the pick-up truck
were not functioning at the time of the collision. The defendant
also argued that the plaintiff was able to play on his college
Lacrosse team, engage in competitive ATV races and had made a
good recovery from his fracture.
The jury found that the defendant, Kyle Fisher, and the third
party defendant, Nathan Burkholder, were both negligent. However,
the jury determined that the negligence of Kyle Fisher was not a
legal cause of injury to the plaintiff. Fishers Garage was found
not negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1 in damages
against the third party defendant, Nathan Burkholder. The case is
currently on appeal.
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:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- 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.