ON PROXIMATE CAUSE Auto/bicycle collision - Plaintiff bicyclist riding in direction of opposing traffic testifies that he first observes defendant apparently traveling too rapidly and failing to pay adequate attention when he is approximately ________ feet away - Facial fractures and lacerations - Approximately ________ sutures - Moderate facial scarring - Alleged closed head injury and cognitive deficits preventing plaintiff financial planner from working - Right wrist fracture - Fractured ribs.

Monmouth County

The plaintiff bicyclist, 41 at the time of the accident and 47 at trial, contended that the defendant driver was traveling too rapidly and failed to make adequate observations, resulting in his being struck. The collision occurred at a point in the roadway where the street on which the defendant was proceeding merged with the roadway on which the plaintiff was traveling at a "Y." The defendant contended that the plaintiff had suddenly crossed onto his side of the roadway and that he was unable to avoid striking him. The plaintiff denied that this position was accurate and maintained that he had been riding on the same side for some distance. The defendant, who indicated that he was riding while facing opposing traffic, which would be in violation of the applicable statute, maintained that he did so because he believed that it was safer being able to see approaching traffic. The defendant contended that the plaintiff, who claimed to have first observed the defendant ________ feet away while the defendant was traveling too rapidly and apparently not paying attention, should have taken evasive action.

The plaintiff testified that the accident occurred when he was approximately one foot from the curb. The defendant denied that this testimony should be accepted and pointed to impact damage to the right bumper of the defendant’s car. The plaintiff maintained that he suffered an orbital fracture and severe facial lacerations that necessitated approximately ________ sutures. The plaintiff contended that the moderate facial scarring is permanent in nature.

The plaintiff further contended that he sustained a closed head injury that was confirmed by a battery of neuropsychological testing and which left with him with permanent difficulties with memory and concentration. He maintained that he will be unable to resume working in the fast paced area of financial because of the injuries. The plaintiff’s forensic accountant discussed approximately $________ in past and future economic losses.

The defendant’s neurologist denied that the plaintiff continued to suffer cognitive deficits. The defendant’s orthopedist did not dispute that although the wrist healed, some degree of deformity and weakness are permanent.

The jury found that the defendant was negligent, but that this negligence was not a substantial factor in the happening of the accident. The plaintiff’s post trial motions were denied and the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.