ARTICLE ID 169379
- MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/TRUCK COLLISION - ALLEGED EXCESSIVE SPEED BY TRACTOR-TRAILER CAUSES TRUCK TO STRIKE TURNING PLAINTIFF - NEGLIGENT TRUCK MAINTENANCE BY EMPLOYER - CLAIMED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY - COGNITIVE DEFICITS - PERMANENT DIPLOPIA - POST-TRAUMATIC MIGRAINE HEADACHES.
Miami-Dade County, FL
This action arose from a collision between a tractor-
trailer driven by the defendant truck driver and a passenger
vehicle driven by the female plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendant driver was speeding, negligently entered a
Miami-Dade County intersection and struck her vehicle. The
plaintiff additionally claimed that the truck was not properly
maintained and the driver was fatigued. The defendants employer,
Worldwide Dedicated Services, was also named as a defendant in
the case. The defendants argued that the accident was caused
solely by the negligence of the plaintiff who pulled into the
intersection from a flashing red light, stopped in the
defendants lane of travel and violated the trucks right-of-way.
The defendant truck driver was in the course and scope of his
employment delivering auto parts and was driving a tractor-
trailer in December of ________. Evidence showed that the plaintiff
was traveling north on Route ________ and exited to get onto Northwest
58th Street in Miami. At the top of the exit ramp, the plaintiff
was preparing to turn left onto 58th Street. Evidence showed that
the traffic light at that location becomes a blinking light at
night; the plaintiff had a blinking red light and the defendant,
heading east on 58th Street, had a blinking yellow light.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant truck driver was
traveling at an excessive speed and struck the back of her
vehicle as she attempted a left turn. The plaintiffs accident
reconstruction expert opined that the defendant truck driver had
ample time and opportunity to avoid striking the plaintiffs
vehicle.
The impact to the rear of the plaintiffs car caused it to spin.
Testimony indicated that the plaintiff was found unconscious at
the scene. The plaintiff alleged that she could not remember the
details of how the collision occurred due to a traumatic brain
injury she sustained as a result of the collision.
The plaintiffs sister testified that she was following the
plaintiff in another vehicle. The sister testified that there
were two left-turn lanes and she stopped in the right lane while
the plaintiff stopped in the left lane and then proceeded into
the intersection. The plaintiffs sister conceded on cross-
examination that there was no apparent reason for the plaintiff
to have stopped in the travel lane in front of the oncoming
tractor-trailer.
The plaintiffs truck safety expert testified that the defendant
failed to keep appropriate maintenance logs, leading this expert
to conclude that the truck was not properly maintained. The
plaintiff argued that the defendant employer was responsible for
maintenance of the truck under a contract with the non-party
truck owner.
The plaintiffs neuropsychiatrist testified that the plaintiffs
traumatic brain injury was confirmed by neuropsychological
testing. The plaintiff also complained of continuing migraine
headaches and depression. She testified that she is unable to
remember things and, as a single mother, she now has difficulty
caring for her minor son. The plaintiff also claimed injury to
the muscle of her left eye necessitating strabismus surgery. The
plaintiff claimed that she has been left with permanent diplopia
(double vision) which creates difficulty ambulating and
performing other physical activities. The plaintiff was an artist
and painter and she also claimed that her eye injury made it more
difficult to paint.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant driver was fatigued at
the time of the collision and failed to obtain eight hours of
rest as required by federal motor carrier regulations. However,
the defendant driver testified that he worked Monday through
Friday and had, in fact, been off on the Sunday before the Monday
accident. The defense argued that, during deposition testimony,
the defendant mistakenly said he worked the day before the
collision because he was erroneously told that the collision
occurred on a Wednesday.
Evidence showed that the collision occurred at approximately 9:15
p.m. on a Monday, a few miles from the location where the
defendant had picked up the loaded truck and he was in route to
his first delivery at the time. The defense also showed that the
non-party owner of the truck performed full-point inspections of
the truck twice yearly and such an inspection had been performed
some two months before the subject accident.
The defense claimed that the plaintiff pulled out from the
blinking red light, started a left turn and then stopped in the
path of the oncoming tractor-trailer. The defendant testified
that he was in the right of two travel lanes and attempted to
avoid the collision by honking his horn, swerving and braking the
truck. The defendant contended that he could not avoid striking
the back of the plaintiffs car.
The defense called two independent witnesses, one traveling
behind the plaintiffs car intending to make a left turn and the
other who made a right turn in front of the plaintiff and
witnessed the accident in a rear view mirror. Both witnesses
testified that the defendant driver took evasive action and
attempted to avoid the impact.
The defense argued that the trucks tire marks from the accident
scene supported the defendants testimony and that the defendant
truck driver acted bravely by swerving into the guardrail to
lessen the impact to the plaintiffs car. By swerving, the
defendants truck could have flipped off the overpass and caused
serious injury or death to the defendant driver, according to
defense arguments. The defendants also claimed that, had the
defendant truck driver not swerved, the plaintiffs injuries
would have been more severe.
The defendants denied that the plaintiff sustained a permanent
brain injury as a result of the accident. The defendants
neuropsychologist opined that the plaintiffs testing did not
support her claim of a brain injury, but was consistent with
minor depression. The plaintiffs medical records also showed a
left eye drift prior to the date of the collision, according to
evidence offered by the defense. The defendants argued that "You-
Tube" videos of the plaintiff at her sons birthday party and
building a snowman contradicted her claim of physical
limitations.
The jury found no negligence on the part of the defendants which
was a legal cause of injury to the plaintiff.
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.