$______ GROSS VERDICT - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION - TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURE - MULTIPLE SURGERIES PERFORMED - PERMANENT LUMBAR INJURY - 51% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

• Pages: 5-5

tion to extend discovery. The plaintiff pointed to the defendants’

failure and refusal to timely list expert witnesses for any of the five

trial settings, despite clear warnings from the court about the con-

sequences of noncompliance. Because the defendants had serially

failed to comply with any of the pretrial orders requiring timely ex-

pert disclosure the court rightfully excluded the expert and denied

the defendants’ motion to continue and their subsequent motion

for reconsideration. The plaintiff argued that the decision to deny

the motion to extend, after 1,513 days of discovery, was well within

the discretion of the court.

The plaintiff refuted the defendants’ arguments as to allusions to

insurance, citing Purdy v. Gulf Breeze enterprises, Inc., 403 So. 2d

1325, 1330-31 (Fla. 1981), acknowledging that “the defendant’s

right not to have the subject of insurance mentioned to the jury was

abolished by our landmark case, Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d

713 (Fla. 1969),” holding that an attorney may question prospec-

tive jurors about any possible prejudice or bias they may have

whether it be for or against insurance companies. The plaintiff

pointed to the defendants’ repeated reference and questioning of

witnesses as to the plaintiff’s medical records and suggestions that

the plaintiff’s failure to go and get those records somehow meant

she was hiding something from the jury and from treating physi-

cians. The defendants did this despite the fact that they had sub-

poenaed and received all of the plaintiff’s treating physician’s

records and chose not to admit them into evidence or get the treat-

ing physicians to review them. Thus, the plaintiff’s attorney com-

mitted no improper questioning. The plaintiff also argued that,

procedurally, the defendants’ failure to object until well after the

verdict was rendered waived any argument the defendants could

have had about any perceived impropriety by plaintiff’s counsel.

The defendants’ motion for new trial was denied.

$571,000 GROSS VERDICT – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/MOTORCYCLE

COLLISION – TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURE – MULTIPLE SURGERIES PERFORMED –

PERMANENT LUMBAR INJURY – 51% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

Hillsborough County, FL

This motor vehicle negligence action arose when

the plaintiff’s motorcycle struck the side of the

defendant’s’ vehicle after the defendant struck a

light pole causing the plaintiff to sustain multiple

serious injuries. The case was defended on both

liability and damages.

The plaintiff, the motorcycle driver, alleged that he

crashed his motorcycle into defendant’s car after the

defendant negligently ran into a light pole at 9:00 a.m.

on May 12, 2012. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a tib-

ial plateau fracture as a result of the accident. He un-

derwent several emergent surgeries to address the

fracture. The plaintiff also complained of a long-term

low back injury which he claimed was causally related

to the collision.

The plaintiff was 42 years old at the time of the acci-

dent. He alleged that the injuries he sustained in the col-

lision prevented him from returning to work as a

warehouse supervisor. At the time of trial, the plaintiff

had not worked for 10 years and he claimed an inability

to work in the future. The plaintiff sought economic dam-

ages in excess of $3,000,000 and also asked for an

award of $6,000,000 for his pain and suffering.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff negligently

caused the accident because he failed to brake, fol-

lowed the defendant’s vehicle too closely and was not

attentive. The defense argued that the plaintiff had the

last clear chance to prevent the collision. The defense

also argued that the plaintiff’s low back injury was not re-

lated to the accident and that he had recovered well

from the leg fracture. The defense contended that the

plaintiff never made any effort to return to work, while

continuing to take vacations and lead an otherwise

normal life.

The jury found the plaintiff 51% at fault and awarded

$571,000 in gross damages, reduced to a net award

(after all reductions) of $226,516.

REFERENCE

Wilham vs. Darrigo. Case no. 13-CA-005701; Judge

Teshe Arkin, 08-11-22.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Kenneth W. Ward and Ryan D.

Mitchell of Ward-Mitchell in Tampa, FL. Attorneys for

defendant: Michelle M. Bartels and Aram P.

MegerianofCole,Scott&Kissane,P.A.inTampa,FL.

COMMENTARY

The Hillsborough County jury hearing this auto/motorcycle collision

case assessed 51% of the fault against the plaintiff motorcycle

driver after he struck the defendant’s disabled vehicle. The plain-

tiff’s tibial plateau fracture and the resulting surgeries were of a

nature which could not be refuted by the defendant. However, the

plaintiff’s claim of a continuing low back injury and a total disabil-

ity from employment was strenuously challenged.

The jury ultimately awarded total gross damages of $571,000, de-

spite the request of plaintiff’s counsel for a total of $9,000,000 dur-

ing closing statements. The jury also determined the property

damage was worth $10,000. The judgment to be entered against

the defendant will be approximately $226,516, after reductions for

comparative fault and collateral source set-offs. The plaintiff’s mo-

tion to tax costs is pending.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 5

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now