ARTICLE ID 182081
$________ - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/TRUCK COLLISION - TRACTOR-TRAILER DRIVER STRIKES VEHICLE WHILE CLOSING DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR AFTER ENTERING CAR - CAR IS PUSHED UP ONTO SIDEWALK - LUMBAR HERNIATIONS - PERCUTANEOUS 2-LEVEL LUMBAR FUSION - PSEUDOARTHRODESIS - PROBABLE FUTURE SURGERY.
Hudson County, NJ
This action involved a plaintiff off duty police
officer, approximately age 40 years old, who contended that after he entered
his car and had almost completed closing the door, the defendant
tractor-trailer driver struck the door and pushed his car onto
the adjacent sidewalk. The plaintiff contended that as a result,
he suffered a lumbar herniation that necessitated a percutaneous
two-level lumbar fusion. The plaintiff maintained that, the
fusion did not take, he continues to experience severe pain, it
is very likely that he will require additional surgery and he
will probably be permanently unemployable.
There was no independent eyewitness testimony. The incident
occurred on a narrow one-way street. The plaintiff contended that
because of the presence of a double-parked car on the left side
of the street, there was inadequate room for the defendant to
pass through the area safely. The plaintiff was parked on the
right side of the road. The plaintiff maintained that after
entering his car and almost completing closing the door, he
observed a large wheel striking his drivers side and was pushed
onto the sidewalk.
The plaintiff presented a trucking safety expert who maintained
that because of the presence of double parked car, there was only
ten feet for the eight foot wide tractor-trailer to travel
through and that the defendant should not have attempted to
squeeze through such a narrow area.
The defendant denied that the plaintiffs version was accurate.
The defendant maintained that the collision occurred when the
plaintiff opened his door to exit and not as he was closing it
after entering. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff
opened his car door into the trailer portion of the rig.
The plaintiff contended that the step next to the passenger side
of the cab and a plastic panel above the step sustained property
damage and that this factor was particularly consistent with the
plaintiffs version. The defendant maintained that the damage to
the cab was previously sustained. There was no damage to the
trailer.
The plaintiffs accident reconstruction expert maintained that
the damage pattern to the inside of the plaintiffs door
reflected that the lug nuts from the defendants wheel impacted
with the door. The plaintiffs accident reconstruction expert
also contended that the damage to the step and panel on the
passenger side of the defendants cab was also supportive of the
plaintiffs version.
The defendants accident reconstruction expert denied that this
position should be accepted and maintained that the physical
evidence was consistent with the defendants version. The
defendant further denied that a double parked car was on the left
side of the roadway. The plaintiff elicited testimony from the
defendant driver both in his deposition and at trial that he had
approximately one and a-half feet of clearance on either side.
The plaintiffs trucking safety expert maintained that the
defendant should have realized that attempting to pass through
such a narrow opening was dangerous.
The plaintiff complained of back pain to EMS at the scene, but
refused medical attention. The plaintiff contended that he
developed severe lower back pain and that approximately five
weeks later; he sought chiropractic care and eventually came
under the care of an orthopedist, pain management physician and
orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff maintained that conservative
treatment was inadequate and that he underwent a percutaneous
two-level lumbar fusion.
The plaintiff maintained that because of the likely failure of
the fusion, and continuing severe pain, the plaintiff took an
early retirement with a significantly reduced pension. The
plaintiff contended that because of the pain and probable need
for additional surgery, he is permanently unemployable.
The defendant denied that the plaintiffs claims that the
incident caused herniations and the need for surgery should be
accepted. The defendant pointed to the records of the
chiropractor who first saw the plaintiff five weeks after the
accident that had injured his back subsequently moving furniture
and painting. The chiropractor had no independent recollection of
such history. The plaintiff maintained that he had irritated the
lower back when attempting to paint and move furniture, was
unable to do the tasks and had to hire individuals and obtain
help from friends to complete them.
The defendant further maintained that the plaintiff had a long
history of lower back complaints. The plaintiff had been a police
officer for approximately 20 years and contended that any prior
lumbar complaints were short lived and had never prevented him
from remaining physically active. The evidence reflected that the
plaintiff was a member of the emergency S.W.A.T. team, a D.A.R.E.
officer and also helped provide security after the 9-11 attacks,
being mentioned by name in the Congressional Record. The
plaintiff maintained that in view of this history, the
defendants position should clearly be rejected.
The defendants vocational expert contended that the plaintiff
could engage in any number of alternative jobs and the defendant
maintained that even if the plaintiff could not continue as a
police officer, he should be able to earn $________-$________ per
year. The plaintiff contended that a number of the jobs discussed
by the defendants expert, including an airport security guard,
entailed long periods of standing and the plaintiff maintained
that he clearly could not do such work.
The plaintiffs economist concluded that based upon an inability
to obtain alternative future employment, the plaintiff would
suffer approximately $1 million in future economic losses. The
expert also maintained that if the plaintiff was able to obtain
alternative work, he would nonetheless suffer $________ in such
losses.
The jury found the defendant ________% negligent and awarded
$________. The award was allocated as follows: $________ for past
lost earnings, $________ for future lost earnings and $________ for
pain and suffering.
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.