$______ CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - MULTIPLEVEHICLE COLLISION - TRUCK STRIKES DECEDENT AND SPINS HER INTO ONCOMINGTRAFFIC - WRONGFUL DEATH - HIGH/LOW AGREEMENT.

• Date: 01 April 2012

the non-party driver of the car which stopped. She clearly stated

that the reason she stopped was because the co-defendant’s con-

struction truck had pulled out in front of her. Plaintiff’s counsel at-

tempted to focus the biggest apportionment of negligence against

the construction company on a two-fold theory involving negligent

operation of its truck plus negligent management of the construc-

tion site. The plaintiff claimed that the construction company vio-

lated PennDOT regulations and failed to reopen the highway in a

safe manner.

During closing statements, plaintiff’s counsel commented that the

negligence of the striking driver was “as clear as the skid marks on

the highway”, but that the collision would not have occurred but for

the negligence of the construction company. The defendant driver

had $100,000 in liability coverage and was ultimately assessed to

be 35% negligent with the bulk of liability (65%) being placed on

the construction company.

The case was tried under a high/low agreement of $1.5 million/$3

million. The agreement does not affect the $2,375,547 damage

award, but precludes post-trial motions or an appeal.

$2,254,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – MULTIPLE

VEHICLE COLLISION – TRUCK STRIKES DECEDENT AND SPINS HER INTO ONCOMING

TRAFFIC – WRONGFUL DEATH – HIGH/LOW AGREEMENT.

Philadelphia County, PA

In this matter, the surviving family members of a

woman killed in a three-car accident sought

recovery for their loss. The family brought suit

against the driver who precipitated the collision

and his employer for vicarious liability. The

defendants conceded liability.

On December 18, 2009, Dewey B., 49, of Honey

Brook, Pennsylvania was in her vehicle preparing to

make a left turn when she was struck from behind by

John A. At the time of the crash, John A. was operat-

ing a truck owned by his employer, Degler–Whiting,

Inc. Upon impact, her vehicle spun out into oncom-

ing traffic, where it was T-boned by another car mov-

ing at approximately 45 m.p.h. She was killed

instantly.

The deceased was survived by her husband and two

adult daughters. The family filed suit in the Philadel-

phia County Court of Common Pleas. Both John A.

and Degler-Whiting, Inc. were named in the suit as

defendants. The family sought recovery for Dewey B.’s

lost earnings and lost earning capacity, among other

things. At the time of her death, Dewey B. earned

$22,000 a year as a bus driver for the Krapf Bus Com-

pany. The family also sued for severe emotional and

psychological loss under the seminal case, Rettger v.

UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915, 933 (Pa. Super.,

2010).

The defendants offered less than $1 million pretrial

while stipulating to liability at the time of trial. The jury

considered testimony from both plaintiffs’ and defen-

dants’ economic experts, who offered contrasting

economic damages figures.

After four days of trial, the jury deliberated for five

hours before returning with a $2.254 million verdict for

the plaintiffs. The verdict included $1.5 million in sur-

vival damages and $754,000 in wrongful death dam-

ages. In keeping with a high-low agreement entered

into between plaintiff and defendants, the matter

was settled post-verdict for a confidential amount.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s economics expert: David Hopkins in King of

Prussia, PA. Defendant’s economics expert: Gary

Barach in Philadelphia, PA.

Estate of Dewey Book vs. Degler-Whiting, et al. Case

no. 100504693; Judge Gregory Smith, 03-01-12.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Steven G. Wigrizer & Samuel

A. Anyan of Wapner, Newman, Wigrizer, Brecher &

Miller in Philadelphia, PA. Attorneys for defendants:

Glenn A. Ricketti of Margolis Edelstein in

Philadelphia, PA, and Steven M. Liero of Connor

Weber & Oberlies in Philadelphia, PA.

COMMENTARY

Plaintiff’s counsel interviewed various jurors post-verdict. Jurors in-

dicated that the plaintiffs’ perceived economic state, specifically the

fact that the surviving family members were suburbanites, factored

into their damages award. In sum, members of the Philadelphia

jury felt that the suburban family was more economically comfort-

able, and therefore, less in need of compensation.

$2,100,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – INTERSECTION COLLISION –

FAILURE TO STOP FOR RED LIGHT – ALLEGED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED –

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT – BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY – RSD – TOTAL DISABILITY

FROM EMPLOYMENT CLAIMED.

U.S. District Court - Eastern District of PA

The plaintiff was driving through a Lancaster

County, Pennsylvania, intersection on February

14, 2009, when the defendant driver disregarded

a red light, struck her vehicle in the side and fled

the scene. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant

driver was intoxicated at the time of the collision

and that the defendant owner (the driver’s father)

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS5

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now