Louisville Jury Awards $300,000 in Red-Light Pedestrian Crash

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.

A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.

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.

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.