$______ RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - TRUCK/AUTO INTERSECTION COLLISION - FAILURE OF LANDSCAPE TRUCK DRIVER TO STOP AT RED LIGHT - DEATH OF UNMARRIED 21-YEAR-OLD COLLEGE SENIOR.

• Pages: 8-8

Attorney for plaintiff: Robert S. Sandman of Hankin

Sandman & Palladino in Atlantic City, NJ.

COMMENTARY

It is felt that the plaintiff’s case would have been clearly enhanced by

the evidence that the plaintiff had immigrated to this country many

years earlier with virtually no assets and had built up this highly lu-

crative family business. It is felt that the positive impression that the

plaintiff would be expected to make would render the jury particu-

larly receptive to the plaintiff’s claims and less likely to base its deci-

sion on the broker’s contentions that by adhering to Wang vs. Allstate

Ins. Co., 125 NJ 2 (1991), which provides that a mention in the

preprinted insurance application of the need for additional coverage

is adequate, it had acted sufficiently. In this regard, although such

language was contained in applications from prior years, the plaintiff

would have pointed out that the defendant could not produce any evi-

denceofsuchaformbeing used for the year of the fire. Additionally, it

is felt that the evidence of the inspection that was performed before

the policy for the structure was issued supported the plaintiff’s claims

that the building was underinsured, and that email communications

between the broker and the carrier reflected knowledge of the inspec-

tion results by the broker, would have constituted a “smoking gun” if

the case had been tried.

$990,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – TRUCK/AUTO INTERSECTION

COLLISION – FAILURE OF LANDSCAPE TRUCK DRIVER TO STOP AT RED LIGHT –

DEATH OF UNMARRIED 21-YEAR-OLD COLLEGE SENIOR.

Middlesex County, NJ

The plaintiff contended that the defendant driver

of a landscaping truck negligently ran a red light,

causing the collision that took the life of the 21-

year-old driver, an unmarried college senior. The

plaintiff maintained that the decedent, who

suffered massive internal injuries, was conscious

and in great pain and distress at the scene. The

plaintiff also maintained that although

unconscious for most of the period between the

time of the collision and his death several weeks

later, the decedent experienced occasional

periods in which he was conscious and in pain

despite medication. The decedent was home

visiting his parents and had gone out for a haircut

when the motor vehicle accident occurred.

The evidence disclosed that the decedent was

stoppedintherightlanewithanSUVtohisleft.The

SUV driver would have testified that when the light

changed, he observed that the defendant failed to

stop at the red light and did not proceed. The plaintiff

contended that the decedent’s view was obstructed

and that he proceeded because he did not observe

the defendant.

The plaintiff would have presented EMT workers who

came to the decedent’s assistance. The witnesses

would have testified that the decedent was con-

scious and in great distress from the massive internal

injuries at the scene. The father would have testified

that his son was occasionally conscious in the hospi-

tal over the next few weeks and that when he realized

that he was probably going to die, a tear came

down his cheek.

The plaintiff would have also made a claim for the

pecuniary value of the loss of guidance and advice

under Green v Bitner. The plaintiff maintained that the

family was very close knit and that the losses were

substantial. The evidence disclosed that the mother

had recently purchased a digital camera and the

decedent showed her how to use it. The last photo-

graph of him that she took was of the decedent leav-

ing the house to get his hair cut.

The defendant had a $1,000,000 policy. The case

settled prior to trial for $990,000.

REFERENCE

Galletta vs. Escobar & Tee Construction. Docket no.

MID-L-8162-07, 12-01-09.

Attorney for plaintiff: Charles A. Cerussi of Cerussi &

Gunn in Red Bank, NJ & Garden City, NY.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff was able to obtain a recovery that was only slightly less

than the $1,000,000 policy limit, notwithstanding that the decedent,

who was unmarried and had no children, experienced only brief pain

and suffering at the scene and was unconscious most of the time be-

tween the collision and his death several weeks later. The plaintiff,

who would have produced testimony of the EMT workers that the de-

cedentwas in great pain and distress at the scene, would have pointed

Clark vs. UMDNJ 390 N.J. Super. 108 (App Divs. 2006), in which a

$2,000,000 award for two minutes of pain and suffering and a

$1,000,000 award for Green/Bitner damages was sustained by the

Appellate Division. Regarding the loss of guidance and advice, it is

felt that the plaintiff’s evidence that on the day of his death, the dece-

dent had shown his mother how to use a recently purchased digital

camera, and that the last photo she took of him was when he left the

home to get his haircut, shortly before the fatal collision occurred,

would have had a significant impact on the jury if the case had been

tried.

8 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 30, Issue 12, May 2010