$________ GROSS – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION – LEFT TURNING DEFENDANT AUTOMOBILE DRIVER – PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST COLLIDES WITH DEFENDANT AFTER HE HAD ALMOST COMPLETED HIS TURN – PLAINTIFF CONCEDES TRAVELING AT 40 MPH IN 30 MPH ZONE – LEG AMPUTATION – LOWER LEG AND LOWER PORTION OF KNEE INITIALLY AMPUTATED – PORTION OF UPPER KNEE SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED DURING SAME HOSPITALIZATION – PLAINTIFF MISSES LESS THAN TWO MONTHS FROM JOB AS AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER.

Suffolk County, NY

The 33-year-old male plaintiff motorcyclist, an air traffic controller, contended that the defendant automobile driver negligently made a left hand turn into his path of travel, causing the plaintiff to strike the rear quarter panel of the defendant’s car. The plaintiff maintained that as a result of the collision, he suffered severe crush injuries of his right leg which required a “Though the knee” leg amputation that initially involved the lower portion of the knee only. However, the plaintiff subsequently required revision surgery in which a significant section of the upper portion of his knee was amputated as well, leaving him with a hinge to which the prosthetic device attaches. The plaintiff also claimed that he suffered a fracture of the right femur requiring surgery.

The plaintiff had conceded that he was traveling approximately 10 mph above the posted speed limit of 30 mph. However, the plaintiff contended that he should not be penalized for such a minimal infraction. The evidence disclosed that the defendant had almost completed the turn when the plaintiff impacted with the right rear quarter panel of the defendant’s car. The defendant’s accident reconstruction expert concluded that if the plaintiff had been traveling within the speed limit, he probably would have had sufficient time to avoid the collision,.

The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff has been fitted with a prosthesis and ambulates fairly well with the device, but suffers from a significant and noticeable limp. The plaintiff testified that he suffers frequent phantom pain which the plaintiff’s medical expert contended will remain permanently. The plaintiff argued that the jury should consider that the pain and difficulties he suffers from his significant injuries will be present for the remainder of a relatively long life expectancy.

The plaintiff further made economic claims arguing that he will incur substantial future medical and equipment costs. The plaintiff missed slightly less than two months from work as an air traffic controller and the plaintiff argued that the jury should consider that the plaintiff refused to permit his injuries to have a greater impact on his life than absolutely necessary. The plaintiff has a wife and a young child with a second on the way. The plaintiff contended that he cannot be as active with his family as he would like to be and that the extensive limitations on his recreational life has caused him some consternation.The jury found the defendant 63% negligent, the plaintiff 37% comparatively negligent and rendered a gross award of $________. The gross award was allocated as follows: $________ for past pain and suffering, $________ for future pain and suffering, and $________ for future medical costs.