. .

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


$________ Motor Vehicle Negligence – Auto/Pedestrian Collision – Plaintiff security guard is struck with the open driver's door when plaintiff approaches vehicle – L4-L5 disc protrusion – Foot drop.

Ansonia/Milford County, CT

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the plaintiff security guard alleged that the defendant driver was negligent in reversing his vehicle with the driver’s door ajar, causing the plaintiff to be struck by the door and injured. The plaintiff contended that the defendant owner was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The defendants denied the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages as well as causation.

The 60-year-old male plaintiff was employed as a security officer at the high school. On the date of the incident, the plaintiff observed the defendant driver parked in the school parking lot. The plaintiff believed that the defendant was engaged in an illegal activity and walked over to the vehicle to investigate. As the plaintiff approached the vehicle, he opened the driver’s door. The defendant suddenly reversed his vehicle, striking the plaintiff with the open car door. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff sustained injuries. He was diagnosed with a disc protrusion at L4-L5. He was diagnosed with a foot drop as a result of his injury. He suffers constant minor pain and his injuries have negatively impacted his daily living activities.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver alleging that he was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The plaintiff also brought suit against the defendant owner alleging that the owner was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.

The defendants denied the allegations and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the incident, citing the plaintiff’s prior back injuries during the 1980s and 1990s. The defendants argued that any back problems that the plaintiff was currently suffering were related to his prior injuries and were not related to this incident.

The matter was tried over a period of three days.The jury deliberated for a period of five hours and returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $________. The award consisted of $________ for economic damages, $________ for non-economic damages and $________ in interest due to the existing offer of compromise. The economic damages represent a reduction of $________ for collateral source payments from the original sum of $________.

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.