$______ VERDICT MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE TRUCK/AUTO COLLISION PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PASSENGER CONTEND DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANYS DRIVER STRUCK THEIR VEHICLE WHILE EXITING PARKING LOT BOTH PLAINTIFFS CLAIM SPINAL INJURIES EPIDURAL INJECTIONS, PHYSICAL THERAPY, ULTIMATELY BOTH UNDERGO SURGICAL DENERVATION DEFENDANT DENIES CAUSING ACCIDENT AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF DRIVER TRIED TO SQUEEZE BY TRUCK AND CAUSED THE COLLISION.

Miami-Dade County, FL

$1,156,021 VERDICT MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE TRUCK/AUTO COLLISION PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PASSENGER CONTEND DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANYS DRIVER STRUCK THEIR VEHICLE WHILE EXITING PARKING LOT BOTH PLAINTIFFS CLAIM SPINAL INJURIES EPIDURAL INJECTIONS, PHYSICAL THERAPY, ULTIMATELY BOTH UNDERGO SURGICAL DENERVATION DEFENDANT DENIES CAUSING ACCIDENT AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF DRIVER TRIED TO SQUEEZE BY TRUCK AND CAUSED THE COLLISION.

In this motor vehicle negligence case, the plaintiffs asserted that the driver of the defendant's commercial tractor-trailer truck struck their vehicle with such force that it caused significant, permanent injury. The defendant denied negligence and contested the plaintiffs damages. On January 2, 2017, the plaintiffs were exiting the parking lot of a truck stop located at Dade Plaza Corners in Miami Gardens and were stopped at the exit waiting to turn right onto 27th Avenue. The defendant was the owner of a tractor-trailer truck being operated by its employee in the scope and course of his employment. The plaintiffs were the first vehicle in line to exit the parking lot and a witness was in a vehicle behind the plaintiffs. There was only one lane entering the parking lot and one lane exiting. However, the plaintiffs contended, and their witness testified, the defendant's driver pulled alongside the plaintiffs vehicle and attempted to exit ahead of the plaintiffs, striking their vehicle. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant negligently failed to observe traffic rules and was in a non-existent lane where the plaintiff driver could not have anticipated there being another vehicle, and negligently struck the plaintiffs vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that the force of the impact resulted in permanent injuries. As a result of the collision, both plaintiffs claimed cervical and lumbar spine injuries. The plaintiffs treated with urgent care; physical therapy; epidural injections to their spines for pain; and both plaintiffs underwent surgical denervation. The plaintiffs presented an expert neurosurgeon who testified that he reviewed the plaintiffs MRIs, and observed no posterior osteophyte, indicating that the plaintiffs sustained acute injuries. The defendant asserted that the collision occurred at less than two mph and involved only a minor impact to the side of the vehicle. The defendant presented a biomechanical expert who opined that this accident could not have caused the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant refuted the plaintiffs version of the accident, claiming that...