MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE. Rear End Collision. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT

• Pages: 18-19

and shoulder injury. The plaintiff alleged he was re-

quired to undergo lumbar fusion surgery and would

likely need to undergo cervical surgery in the future.

The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the inju-

ries sustained in the collision, he was unable to con-

tinue his plumbing business as a result of his injuries.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-

ing negligence and seeking damages for

aggravation of pre-existing non-symptomatic spinal

injuries.

The defendant denied the allegations and disputed

causation and damages, citing that the impact was

minimal. The defendant also maintained that the

plaintiff was videotaped performing many of the tasks

that he alleged he was unable to do any longer.

The plaintiff had demanded the sum of $1,500,000

prior to the trial. The defendant offered $95,000 to re-

solve the plaintiff’s claim. The matter proceeded to

trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for

less than one hour and returned its verdict in favor of

the defendant. No damages were awarded.

REFERENCE

Ara Azizian vs. Power Engineers, Inc. Case no. 30-

2013-00646367; Judge Ronald Bauer, 10-14-15.

Attorney for defendant: Terry A. Rowland of Demler,

Armstrong & Rowland in Long Beach, CA.

$100,000 RECOVERY FOR POLICY LIMITS

Motor Vehicle Negligence –Rear end collision –

Neck strains –Occipital neuralgia –Headaches.

Orange County, CA

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the

plaintiff driver alleged that the defendant driver

was negligent in striking the rear of the plaintiff’s

stopped vehicle. As a result of the collision, the

plaintiff suffered neck injuries which resulted in

headaches and neck strain. The defendant did not

dispute liability, but disputed the nature and

extent of the plaintiff’sinjuriesanddamages.

On January 8, 2014, the 23-year-old plaintiff, em-

ployed as a paralegal, was operating her vehicle

and was stopped at a traffic light when her vehicle

was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. The

plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck. She was diag-

nosed with neck strain and developed occipital neu-

ralgia, which caused her to suffer intermittent

headaches. She underwent nerve block injections,

which did not provide much relief. She saw an expert

in pain management for additional care. She was

placed off work for several months and had a lost

wage claim of approximately $5,000. She incurred

past medical expenses of approximately $10,000.

The plaintiff brought a claim for negligence against

the defendant driver.

The defendant driver did not dispute liability, but dis-

puted the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries

and damages. The parties agreed to resolve the

plaintiff’s claim for the sum of $100,000 representing

the available policy limits.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s neurology expert: Michael Cummings, M.D.

from Mission Viejo, CA. Plaintiff’s orthopedics expert:

Tivan Hanjan, M.D. from Mission Viejo, CA.

Carolyn Howland vs. Daniel Dekeyser. Case no. 30-

2014-00752755-CU-PA-CJC, 07-28-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Atticus N. Wegman of Aitken,

Aitken, Cohn in Santa Ana, CA.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motor Vehicle Negligence –Intersection collision –

Plaintiff driver contends defendant driver failed to

make adequate observations and take timely

evasive action when cut off by livery driver,

resulting in defendant swerving into right lane of

two lane exit ramp and colliding with plaintiff

driver approaching in right lane.

Queens County, NY

The plaintiff driver, who was proceeding in the

right lane of the two lane exit ramp off the Grand

Central Parkway, contended that after the

defendant driver was cut off by the uninvolved

driver of a livery sedan, the defendant applied his

brakes and veered to the right, causing an impact

between rear of the defendant’s vehicle and the

front portion of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The

defendant contended that he was confronted with

a sudden emergency when the sedan cut him off,

diagonally across the exit lanes, from the moving

lanes of travel. The defendant maintained that

although he applied his brakes and swerved to

the right, and was able to avoid striking the

sedan, he moved to the right and was struck in

the rear by the plaintiff’s minivan, which had

been traveling in the right lane of the ramp and

was unable to stop in time.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

18 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 31, Issue 2, February 2016 Subscribe Now