Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
ARTICLE ID 28443
$________ GROSS - AUTO/TRACTOR TRAILERCOLLISION - SEVERE CLOSED HEAD INJURY TO PLAINTIFF PASSENGER - BASILAR SKULL FRACTURE - MULTIPLE THORACIC SPINE COMPRESSION FRACTURES - PNEUMOTHORAX - BRONCHITIS - PNEUMONITIS.
Brevard
The male plaintiff, age 41 at the time of the accident, was a
passenger in a vehicle driven by his wife which was stopped in
the right travel lane of I-95 in Brevard County. A tractor-
trailer owned by the defendant company and driven by the
defendant driver struck the stopped vehicle causing the plaintiff
to be ejected from the car. The plaintiffs wife died as a result
of injuries sustained in the accident. The plaintiff sustained
severe brain damage and other injuries. The defendants truck
driver and truck owner argued that the accident was caused by the
negligence of the plaintiffs wife (whose estate was also a
defendant in the case) who was driving while intoxicated and
stopped the host vehicle in the right travel lane without her
lights being activated.
On August 6, ________, the plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a
vehicle which was stopped in the northbound right (outside) lane
of I-95 in Titusville at 2:00 A.M. The plaintiff and his wife,
the driver of the vehicle, were returning home from a
bar/restaurant where they had consumed alcoholic beverages. The p 7 3
defendant driver was operating a tractor-trailer northbound in
the right lane and collided with the left front of the
plaintiffs vehicle. The plaintiffs vehicle was deemed to be a
total loss as a result of the accident.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant truck driver was
traveling in excess of 75 miles per hour, was improperly using
low beams and was not qualified to operate the tractor-trailer.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant tractor-trailer owner
negligently hired and trained the defendant driver and failed to
meet federal motor carrier safety regulations involving the
drivers hiring. The employment application submitted by the
defendant driver was incomplete and did not include required
information which pertained to the defendants past driving
record and prior accident history, according to the plaintiffs
arguments.
The plaintiffs medical experts testified that the plaintiff
sustained a severe closed head injury in the accident with
diffuse brain injury and has permanently lost the capacity to
communicate. He also suffered a basilar skull fracture, multiple
thoracic spine compression fractures, pneumothorax, bronchitis
and pneumonitis stemming from the collision. The plaintiff was
employed as a technician for ground support shuttle operations at
Cape Canaveral at the time of his injury.
The plaintiff was found unconscious on the ground five to seven
feet from the car following the collision. The defendants
seatbelt expert testified that the plaintiff was not wearing a
seatbelt, allowing him to be ejected from the vehicle. The
plaintiffs seatbelt expert testified that the plaintiff was
wearing the seatbelt, but that the direction and force of the
impact caused the belt to become unfastened. The plaintiffs
experts also argued that the force of the impact was so severe
that the plaintiff would have sustained a devastating brain
injury regardless of whether he was wearing his seatbelt or not.
The defendant maintained that the driver of the host vehicle was
at fault for stopping her car in a dangerous position on I-95.
The defendant driver testified that the lights of the host
vehicle were not activated and that he did not see the car until
it was too late to avoid the impact. Evidence showed that the
host drivers blood alcohol was in excess of .10 at the time of
the accident.
The jury found the defendant tractor-trailer owner 25% negligent,
the defendant truck driver 20% negligent, the host driver
(plaintiffs wife) 45% negligent and the plaintiff 10%
comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $6.7 million
which was reduced accordingly. The case is currently on appeal.
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.