MUNICIPAL LIABILITY. DEFENDANT'S VERDICT

• Pages: 22-23

Single Vehicle Collision

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Motor Vehicle Negligence – Single vehicle

collision – Plaintiff passenger alleged that driver,

an agent of the defendant corporation, operated

vehicle in an unsafe manner, causing plaintiff to

suffer an injury to her head and neck.

New London County, CT

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the

plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s agent

operated a vehicle in a negligent manner, causing

ittoleavetheroadwayandstrikeatreestump,

generating the plaintiff injuries. The plaintiff

alleged she suffered injuries to her head and neck

as a result of the incident. The defendant denied

the allegations, disputed the plaintiff’s version of

the incident, as well as the plaintiff’s claims of

injuries.

The female plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a

vehicle owned by the defendant and operated by its

agent. The plaintiff alleged that while transporting her

to the rental agency, the defendant’s driver turned a

corner in such a manner that the vehicle left the

roadway, struck a tree stump, and proceeded onto

the sidewalk before the driver steered the car back

onto the roadway. As a result of the driver’s negli-

gence, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries,

which included head and neck, as well as right arm

wounds. The plaintiff was diagnosed with spinal

subluxation of her cervical spine, headaches, and in-

juries to her right arm and upper back. The plaintiff

brought suit against the defendant rental company

alleging negligence by its agent, seeking damages.

The defendant denied the allegations. The driver

maintained that the incident did not occur as the

plaintiff described, but rather the vehicle ran over an

accumulation of hardened ice or snow that was in

the roadway, causing the vehicle to bounce slightly.

The defendant driver testified that the vehicle never

struck a tree stump, and never left the roadway con-

trary to the plaintiff’s assertions. The defendant further

testified that the plaintiff failed to report any injuries or

theincidentatallwhenshearrivedattherental

office.

The matter proceeded to trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated and

returned its verdict in favor of the defendant. A mo-

tion by the plaintiff to set aside the verdict was denied

by the court.

REFERENCE

Sermyra Brown-Newton vs. Camrac, LLC. Case no.

CV-12-6014921; Judge Terence Zemetis, 10-29-14.

Attorney for defendant: Julie A. Harris of Hassett &

George,P.C.inSimsbury,CT.

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Municipal Liability – Plaintiffs allege that

defendant’s storm drains caused water runoff and

damage due to failure to maintain and repair

drains – Diminution in value to property.

Rockingham County, NH

In this case, the plaintiff homeowners alleged that

they suffered damages, including diminution in

value and loss of enjoyment of property when the

town failed to maintain its catch basin, which

resulted in a sinkhole and deviation of water onto

the plaintiffs’ property causing damages. The

defendant denied the allegations, and disputed

liability to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff homeowners allege that a storm drain op-

erated by the defendant town located near the plain-

tiff’s property, which apparently collapsed along with

theculvertatthesametimethatasinkholeap

-

peared on the plaintiff’s property. As a result of the

collapsed catch basin, culvert water was diverted

onto the plaintiffs’ property, culminating in water dam-

age to the plaintiffs’ basement, and emanating mold

damage, as well as significant soil erosion and alter-

ation of the existing property which contained some

wetland area. The plaintiffs maintained that the town’s

agent was aware that the culvert and drain were

blocked, yet failed to advise the plaintiffs or require

the town to take any action other than placing cones

around the area of the sinkhole. The plaintiffs brought

suit against the defendant alleging that the defen-

dant was liable for the water damage on a theory of

failure to maintain, trespass, and repair. The plaintiffs

sought damages for diminution in value to their prop-

erty, loss of enjoyment, monetary damages associ-

ated with the water damage, and indemnity for what

the plaintiffs alleged amounted to a “taking” of their

property by the defendant.

The defendant denied the allegations and disputed

the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants denied any re-

sponsibility for the water damage that allegedly oc-

curred, and disputed the plaintiffs’ claim of damages.

22 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 30 Issue 9, April 2015 Subscribe Now