MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE. Rear End Collision. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 12-13

At the conclusion of a 2-day trial, the jury initially com-

pleted both the plaintiff and the defendant’s jury ver-

dict forms. The jury determined that the plaintiff had

suffered $1,262 in economic damages, but also con-

cluded that the defendant was not liable. The court

sent the jury back for further deliberations based upon

the inconsistent verdict forms, both of which were

completed. The jury returned its verdict for the defen-

dant and no damages were awarded. The plaintiff

filed a motion to set aside the verdict due to the in-

consistencies with both forms being completed. The

court denied the motion and judgment was entered

in favor of the defendant.

REFERENCE

Damaris Santos vs. Hazel Johnson. Case no. CV17-

6074184S; Judge M. Nawaz Wahla, 09-25-19.

Attorney for plaintiff: Jonathan Perkins of Perkins &

Associates in Woodbridge, CT. Attorney for

defendant: Philip R. Dunn, Jr. of Jackson O’Keefe,

LLP in Wethersfield, CT.

Rear End Collision

$75,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY

Motor vehicle negligence – Rear end collision –

Minor plaintiff suffered injuries to head when

vehicle struck from rear while stopped to make

left turn – Facial lacerations – Facial scarring –

Head injury.

Withheld County, MA

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the minor

plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver was

negligent in striking the rear of the plaintiff’s

stopped vehicle. As a result, the minor plaintiff

suffered injuries when she struck her head and

was caused to suffer facial lacerations and

scarring. The defendant driver denied the

allegations and disputed causation and damages.

The 5-year-old female minor plaintiff was a rear seat

passenger in her family’s vehicle. While the vehicle

was stopped to make a left turn, it was struck from be-

hind by the defendant’s vehicle. The force of the im-

pact caused the rear window of the plaintiff’s vehicle

to break, showering the minor back-seat plaintiff in

shredded glass. She sustained multiple lacerations to

her face and head as a result and she was diag-

nosed with 4 significant lacerations to her face which

resulted in scarring. Additionally, she sustained a

bump on her forehead.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver

alleging negligence. The defendant driver denied the

allegations. The defendant driver disputed causation

and damages arguing that the plaintiff’s injuries were

not causally related or permanent in nature. Particu-

larly, the defendant maintained that the purported

bump on the child’s forehead was not causally re-

lated and was in fact a preexisting condition that the

defendant did not cause or further damage.

The parties ultimately agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s

claim for the sum of $75,000 in a confidential settle-

ment between the parties prior to any trial in this

matter.

REFERENCE

Minor Plaintiff vs. Defendant Driver.

Attorneys for plaintiff: James V. Marano, Jr. and

Linda M. Freehill of Kushner & Marano, PC in

Newton, MA.

$65,000 VERDICT

Motor vehicle negligence – Rear end collision –

Hip injury – Back injury requiring epidural

injections.

Middlesex County, MA

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the

plaintiff driver alleged that the defendant driver

was negligent in striking the rear of the plaintiff’s

vehicle while it was stopped for a red light. The

plaintiff suffered injuries to his hip and back. The

defendant driver denied the allegations and

disputed causation and damages.

The male plaintiff was operating his vehicle and was

stopped at the intersection where the collision oc-

curred for a red traffic light. While the plaintiff’s vehicle

was stopped, the defendant’s vehicle collided into

the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the colli-

sion, the plaintiff suffered injuries to his right hip and

lower back.

He was diagnosed with a labral tear, lumbar injury

which resulted in right-sided sciatic pain radiating

down his leg and right sacroiliac joint arthropathy. The

plaintiff underwent conservative care and ultimately,

due to the continued pain and discomfort, received

steroidal injections.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver

alleging negligence.

The defendant denied the allegations and disputed

the plaintiff’s allegations of injuries and damages. The

matter proceeded to trial. The defendant filed a mo-

tion in limine to prevent the plaintiff from presenting

any evidence that the defendant was intoxicated at

12 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 35, Issue 9, April 2020 Subscribe Now