. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.


DEFENDANT’S – Motor Vehicle Negligence – Auto/Motorcycle Collision – Alleged negligent pull out – Multiple fractures – Knee injury with surgery – Osteomyelitis – Future surgery allegedly indicted.

Volusia County, FL

The plaintiff alleged that on May 21, ________ at approximately midnight, he was injured in an accident whereby the motorcycle he was operating collided with an automobile being operated by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was the result of the negligence of the defendant in pulling into the road and violating the plaintiff’s right-of-way. The defendant maintained that the accident was solely the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence in driving his motorcycle at an extreme rate of speed.

The plaintiff testified that he was riding his motorcycle with the right-of-way, when the defendant’s vehicle suddenly pulled out from a driveway and made a right turn in front of him. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert contended that the plaintiff was unable to avoid striking the back of the defendant’s vehicle.

The plaintiff sustained multiple bone fractures for which closed reduction was performed. He also sustained a knee injury necessitating multiple surgeries and subsequently developed osteomyelitis. Several debridement surgeries were performed in an attempt to eradicate the infection. However, one of the plaintiff’s treating physicians opined that the plaintiff may require an amputation from above the knee or a knee replacement in the future.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff, while out “joy riding” on his high performance motorcycle, was traveling at an extremely high rate of speed at the time of the incident. The defendant claimed that he was leaving work about midnight and, when he looked to his left for oncoming traffic, he saw none approaching. The defendant’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the plaintiff would not have been able to see the oncoming motorcycle due to its speed and distance. The defendant claimed that he made a right turn onto the road and shortly thereafter the plaintiff’s motorcycle struck his left rear bumper. The defense also produced witness testimony that the plaintiff’s motorcycle was proceeding at a fast rate of speed prior to the collision.

On damages, the defense contended that a ________ debridement procedure found the source of the plaintiff’s osteomyelitis and with antibiotics his doctor reported that the plaintiff should not require future surgical procedures. The defense contended that the plaintiff’s initial orthopedic injuries had healed well with no residual issues. The jury found no negligence on the part of the defendant which was a legal cause of injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s post-trial motion for new trial is pending.

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.