Louisville, Kentucky Jury Awards $7,898 in Crosswalk Collision

On March 31, 2015, a head-on collision occurred on Dixie Highway near Pages Lane, Kentucky, when an at-fault driver ran a red light. The plaintiff, not wearing a seat belt, sustained soft-tissue injuries and sought emergency care the next day; her minor daughter also sustained a laceration. The plaintiff first settled with the at-fault driver for $25,000. The plaintiff then filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against her insurer, seeking medical expenses and pain and suffering for chronic neck and back pain. The insurer disputed the injury extent, asserting they were minor and degenerative. The insurer also argued the plaintiff's non-use of a seat belt contributed to her damages. Expert medical testimony addressed the severity and origin of the plaintiff's reported symptoms. The at-fault driver's liability was not contested at the UIM trial. A Kentucky jury found the at-fault driver 90% at fault and the plaintiff 10% at fault for not wearing a seat belt. The jury awarded $17,985 for medical expenses and $133,750 for pain and suffering, totaling $151,735. During deliberations, the jury questioned the court about agreeing on a damage number. A final judgment was anticipated to reflect deductions for comparative fault and prior payments.

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.

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.

A lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.

A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.