$________ GROSS – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION – NEGLIGENT LEFT TURN BY HOTEL VALET PARKER – ORBITAL FRACTURE – MEDIAL COLLATERAL LIGAMENT TEAR WITH KNEE SURGERY – 20% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOUND.

Miami-Dade County, FL

The plaintiff was a 62-year-old man riding a motor scooter in South Beach, Florida, when he collided with the defendant valet who was parking a car for a guest of the defendant hotel. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant driver made a negligent left turn from the opposite direction and that the valet parker was an employee of the hotel. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, and the defendant hotel asserted that the valet parker was employed by an independent company and not the hotel.

The plaintiff was riding north on Collins Avenue while the defendant valet parker was traveling south on Collins Avenue. The defendant attempted to make a left turn on to Lincoln Avenue to reach a garage where hotel cars were parked and a collision ensued. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a non-surgical fracture of the orbital floor resulting from the collision. He also claimed a tear of the medial collateral ligament, for which knee surgery was performed approximately one-and-a-half years, post-accident. The plaintiff was a manager at a shop which rented motor scooters at the time of the accident.

The defendant valet parker testified that he saw the plaintiff’s motor scooter and stopped as he was turning left, but the plaintiff rode into his vehicle, as if the plaintiff were not looking. The defense asserted that the plaintiff was speeding and could have avoided the collision. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff was riding a 125CC motor scooter, which required a motorcycle insurance endorsement and a helmet. The plaintiff claimed that he thought he was riding a smaller 50CC scooter (the type rented at his shop) which did not have requirements for an insurance endorsement or a helmet.

The defendant hotel also argued that the co-defendant valet parker was supplied and paid by an independent company and was not an employee of the hotel. On damages, the defendants challenged the causal relationship of the plaintiff’s knee condition to the collision and stressed that he did not voice knee pain until four days after the accident. The defense additionally contended that the injuries to the plaintiff’s face and head resulted from his failure to wear a helmet.

The plaintiff’s hospital medical records were positive for alcohol, and the defense maintained that alcohol consumption was a factor in the collision. The plaintiff admitted that he had “a beer or two” before the collision, but denied that he was intoxicated.The jury found the defendant 80% negligent and the plaintiff 20% comparatively negligent. The jury also determined that the defendant valet parker was an agent of the defendant hotel. The plaintiff was awarded $________ in damages, reduced accordingly. The case is currently on appeal.