Atlanta Tractor-Trailer Collision Settles, Amount Undisclosed

A two-vehicle collision occurred on October 13, 2017, in Mayfield, Kentucky, at the intersection of Ky. 131 and Ky. 58. A 16-year-old permit driver, accompanied by a passenger, was making a left turn from Ky. 131 onto Ky. 58 when her vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver traveling on Ky. 58. Surveillance video showed the permit driver rolled through the stop sign and flashing red light before turning into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The intoxicated driver's blood alcohol content was later measured at .219. Both the permit driver and the passenger sustained severe injuries and required extensive medical treatment, with combined medical bills totaling over $900,000. After settling with the intoxicated driver and receiving underinsured motorist coverage, the injured parties, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Arrowhead Camper Sales. The business was located adjacent to the intersection, and the plaintiffs alleged it contributed to the crash by parking campers and trailers too close to the right-of-way, obscuring the permit driver's view of oncoming traffic. They claimed both a statutory violation under KRS 177.106 and general negligence. The plaintiffs presented an accident reconstruction expert and local witnesses who described long-standing visual challenges at the intersection due to the parked campers. The defendant, Arrowhead Camper Sales, denied its campers obstructed drivers' views, asserting that its owner had navigated the intersection thousands of times without issue. The defense's accident reconstruction expert testified that drivers had an unobstructed view of over 1,000 feet just beyond the stop sign. The defense maintained the crash resulted from the combined negligence of both drivers involved in the collision. The case proceeded to an 11-day trial in Mayfield. After an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on liability in favor of Arrowhead Camper Sales. The jury's finding for the defendant meant they did not reach questions regarding the duties of the drivers or the extent of damages. A defense judgment was subsequently entered.

On May 9, 2015, a passenger was involved in a vehicle collision at the intersection of Fifth and Broadway in downtown Louisville, Kentucky. The vehicle carrying the plaintiff was struck by a second car, whose driver had proceeded through a red light. The plaintiff was treated at an emergency room and subsequently for an aggravation of degenerative cervical and disc conditions, incurring medical bills totaling $19,478. After receiving $25,000 from the at-fault driver's insurer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court against his own carrier, the defendant insurer, seeking Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. The case was later removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed $19,478 for medical expenses and $129,000 for pain and suffering. The defendant insurer argued that the claimed injuries were minimal and pointed to the plaintiff's history of similar complaints from a previous accident seven months prior. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which focused solely on the issue of damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $119,478, comprising $19,478 for medical expenses and $100,000 for pain and suffering. This award exceeded the $35,000 threshold required to activate UIM coverage and the $60,000 amount that would have exhausted the defendant insurer's UIM policy. The court subsequently entered a judgment for the plaintiff for the $25,000 UIM policy limits.

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 May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.