Zephyrhills Jury Awards $152,176 in Rear-End Collision

A rear-end collision occurred in Norwood, Ohio, on November 14, 2017, involving the plaintiff and an at-fault driver. The plaintiff sustained a C5-6 disc injury, requiring fusion surgery approximately ten months after the crash, and an L4-5 injury, which led to a microdiskectomy in December 2018. Medical bills for these treatments totaled $80,739. The at-fault driver's insurer settled for its $25,000 policy limits without a lawsuit. Following the initial settlement, the plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) action against their own insurer, seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's insurer disputed the extent of damages, presenting testimony from a defense orthopedic expert who concluded the plaintiff's treatment course was unrelated to the crash, citing a thirteen-year history of similar symptoms. The defense also raised a $1,000 medical expense threshold defense. The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial in Florence, focusing on causation and damages. The jury first determined the plaintiff met the $1,000 medical threshold. They then awarded the plaintiff $80,939 for medical expenses and an additional $195,000 for pain and suffering, totaling $275,939. A judgment was entered for $240,739, accounting for the underlying policy limits and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The defense had made an $18,000 offer of judgment.

On June 19, 2019, in Brandenburg, Kentucky, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff was rear-ended by another driver while stopped in traffic on Old Mill Road. Although the plaintiff's truck sustained no visible damage and airbags did not deploy, the plaintiff reported immediate neck pain and a headache. The plaintiff was transported to a local hospital, treated, and released for an apparent soft-tissue injury. The at-fault driver was uninsured, prompting the plaintiff to seek uninsured motorist coverage from his insurance carrier, the defendant. The defendant conceded fault for the collision but contested the extent of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff subsequently underwent physical therapy and pain management treatments, including spinal injections for continued neck and back pain, reporting some improvement. The defendant's orthopedic physician, through an independent medical examination, opined that the plaintiff sustained only a temporary strain superimposed on pre-existing conditions and that much of the subsequent medical treatment was unrelated to the crash. The defendant tendered a pre-trial offer of $200,000. The case proceeded to a three-day trial in Brandenburg, where the jury considered only damages. The jury, by a 9-3 vote, awarded the plaintiff $50,728 for past medical expenses, $50,000 for future medical care, and $20,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $120,728. A judgment consistent with the verdict was entered. The defendant later moved to delay enforcement of the judgment until the plaintiff satisfied a Medicare lien.

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit following a rear-end motor vehicle collision that resulted in neck and brain injuries. The case concluded with an award of $106,000. This amount was subsequently adjusted to $96,000. Few other details about the proceedings were available.

A passenger was rendered quadriplegic following a vehicle rollover accident on Interstate 25 in Colorado on July 5, 2013. The plaintiff, a front-seat passenger, alleged that a defendant driver operating a Jeep Cherokee negligently made a sudden left turn from the highway shoulder without a signal, striking the plaintiff's Honda Accord. The collision caused the plaintiff's vehicle to hit the median and roll over multiple times, resulting in a spinal cord injury and a spinal fracture. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant driver for negligence. Product liability claims were also brought against the vehicle manufacturer, windshield manufacturer, and seatbelt manufacturer, alleging dangerous and defective designs. Specifically, the plaintiff contended the windshield failed to provide sufficient roof support during the rollover, leading to roof collapse, and that the seatbelt was defective, allowing slack that contributed to the injuries. The defendants denied liability and disputed the plaintiff's allegations of damages. The seatbelt manufacturer, Takata, specifically argued the alleged slack was due to the plaintiff's body position, not a product defect. The case proceeded to a ten-day trial against only the defendant driver and the seatbelt manufacturer. Following approximately 8.5 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $52,000,000. This amount included $5,000,000 for non-economic losses, $15,000,000 for economic damages, $30,000,000 for physical impairment or disfigurement, and $2,000,000 for the plaintiff spouse's loss of consortium claim. The jury apportioned 50% liability to the defendant driver, 40% to the nonparty vehicle manufacturer (Honda), and 10% to the nonparty windshield manufacturer (AGC Flat Glass North America). The jury found no liability on the part of the defendant seatbelt manufacturer, Takata.

On July 7, 2020, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant's vehicle on Cane Run Road. The minor collision resulted in no immediate injuries, but the plaintiff later sought chiropractic treatment for claimed soft-tissue symptoms, incurring over $10,000 in medical bills and seeking pain and suffering. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages. The defendant disputed negligence, asserting the plaintiff stopped suddenly and that claimed injuries were not compensable due to the minor impact. The defense also presented testimony that the plaintiff, post-collision, asked them to falsely identify the driver and later suggested they visit the plaintiff's chiropractor to "make some money," a proposition they claimed to have explored but rejected. The plaintiff denied these allegations, and the court limited cross-examination of the defendant's passenger on his criminal history. After a three-day trial, the jury was instructed to first determine if the plaintiff met specific injury and medical expense thresholds, and then to consider liability. The jury first found (10-2) the plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury or incurred $1,000 of necessary medical expenses. They then unanimously concluded the defendant was not negligent, halting deliberations before assessing damages. The court entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing for a directed verdict on liability and medical bills, and citing improper tainting of proof and an error in seating a juror excused for cause. The defendant countered the juror objection was flawed and that the verdict aligned with evidence. The motion remained pending.