MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE. Intersection Collision. $______ CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY

Pages8-8
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver
seeking damages for her injuries. The defendant driver
denied the allegations. The defendant disputed the
nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and dam-
ages and offered the sum of $1,800 to settle the
case.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At the conclusion of the one-day trail, the jury deliber-
ated and returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The jury awarded the sum of $33,000 which was sub-
sequently reduced by PIP benefits received. Judg-
ment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum
of $32,633 representing the net verdict plus interest
and court costs.
REFERENCE
Elizabeth Barros-Centeio vs. Warren D. Atlas. Case no.
2001CV001188; Judge Eleanor Sinnott, 02-28-22.
Attorney for plaintiff: Steven R. Whitman of Law
Offices of Steven R. Whitman in Burlington, MA.
Attorney for defendant: Asabel Nunez of Law Offices
of Cain Geller & Vachereau in Scranton, PA.
Intersection Collision
$800,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Motor vehicle negligence – Intersection collision –
Left turn collision – Plaintiff’s vehicle with right-of-
way struck by defendant’s vehicle as it made left
turn – Multiple fractures requiring surgery –
Permanent impairment.
Middlesex County, MA
In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the
plaintiff driver alleged that the defendant driver
was negligent in causing a collision at the
intersection when the defendant driver made a
left turn into the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff
suffered multiple fractures that required surgical
intervention as well as other injuries as a result of
the incident. The defendant disputed the nature
and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages
as well as liability.
The 35-year-old female plaintiff was operating her ve-
hicle with the green traffic signal at the intersection
where the collision occurred. The plaintiff’s vehicle
was struck by the defendant’s vehicle as it made a
left turn into the plaintiff’s lane of travel, causing a sig-
nificant impact between the 2 vehicles. The force of
the impact resulted in a total loss of the plaintiff’s vehi-
cle from the damages sustained.
The plaintiff suffered injuries and was diagnosed with a
closed significantly displaced and angulated fracture
of her left ulna and radius, a closed distal end fibular
fracture, a right lateral talar articular surface fracture,
cuboid and fifth metatarsal fractures. The plaintiff was
required to undergo surgical removal of support im-
plants due to pain and was deemed to have suffered
a permanent disability as a result of the injuries
sustained in this collision.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver
alleging negligence and seeking damages. The
plaintiff demanded the sum of $990,000 to resolve
the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant driver denied the
allegations. The defendant disputed the nature and
extent of the plaintiff’s alleged damages and main-
tained that the plaintiff was responsible, at least par-
tially for the collision. The defendant’s highest offer,
after several rounds of negotiations, was $465,000.
Thepartieswereabletoresolvethematterfollowinga
day-long mediation for the sum of $800,000.
REFERENCE
Jane Doe vs. Driver Roe. 12-10-21.
Attorney for plaintiff: Christopher P. Hamilton of
Hamilton & Hamilton in Waltham, MA.
Rear End Collision
$140,661 VERDICT
Motor vehicle negligence – Rear end collision –
Neck and back injuries alleged.
Litchfield County, CT
In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver was
negligent in striking the rear of the plaintiff’s
vehicle while she was stopped at a stop sign in
traffic causing the plaintiff to sustain injuries. The
defendant denied the allegations and disputed
causation and damages.
On the date of this incident, the female plaintiff was
stopped at a stop sign controlling her direction of
travel. As the plaintiff was stopped, looking to her left
to wait for traffic to clear, the defendant’s vehicle col-
lided into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The force of
the collision caused the plaintiff to suffer neck and
back injuries.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant at-
tempted to minimize the appearance of the impact
by pulling out the vehicle bumper that had been
pushed in before the police could arrive. The plaintiff
8VERDICTS BY CATEGORY
Volume 37, Issue 10, May 2022 Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT