$1.7mm Recovery – Motor Vehicle Negligence – Auto/Pedestrian Collision

As Reported In: 
Recinos – Jury Verdict Review & Analysis, Volume 31, Issue 10


$1,775,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – AUTO/PEDESTRIAN COLLISION – PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK STRUCK BY BUS TURNING LEFT FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTION – SKULL FRACTURE – SUBDURAL HEMATOMA – CRANIOTOMY REMOVING PORTION OF SKULL – PLAINTIFF REQUIRED TO WEAR HELMET FOR SIX MONTHS – EXTENSIVE COGNITIVE DEFICITS OF MEMORY AND CONCENTRATION.

 
Camden County, New Jersey 
This action involved a 60-year-old plaintiff pedestrian who contended that the defendant bus driver negligently failed to make observations as he was turning left from the opposite direction, striking her as she was walking in the crosswalk. The plaintiff contended that she sustained a skull fracture that required a craniotomy and the removal of a section of skill for six months to accommodate brain swelling. The plaintiff maintained the she sustained permanent and very significant injuries to the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes that left her with extensive memory and concentration difficulties, as well as deficits in the area of executive functioning.
The defendant contended that she was turning left on a green arrow and that the plaintiff was crossing on a red light. There were no eyewitnesses other than the parties and the plaintiff could not recall the accident. The plaintiff would have maintained that irrespective of this issue, the accident would not have occurred if the defendant, turning left from the opposite direction, had made proper observations.
The evidence disclosed that although no one actually saw the collision, several witnesses in the immediate vicinity heard it, turned and immediately ran over to the scene. The witnesses indicated that they observed the color of the lights change as they reached the scene. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert would have contended that based upon evidence, including this testimony and evidence that the bus was traveling at approximately 15 mph when turning, the sequence was such that it was doubtful that the defendant had a green left turn arrow.
The plaintiff suffered a skull fracture and a subdural hematoma. She required a craniotomy and a relatively small portion of the right side of the skull, above the ear and below the mid line, was removed to accommodate brain swelling. The plaintiff was required to wear a helmet for approximately six months until the portion of the skull was replaced. The plaintiff maintained that she was left with severe cognitive deficits involving memory, concentration and executive functioning. The plaintiff contended that she has difficulties remembering ingredients she used for cooking. The plaintiff also contended that the family is afraid to leave the plaintiff alone because of potential dangerous consequences, including her forgetting to turn the stove off.
The defendant denied that the plaintiff suffered ongoing complaints from the incident. The defendant maintained that any continuing difficulties stemmed from Parkinson’s disease that was diagnosed approximately two years earlier. The plaintiff’s rehabilitation physician related that the Parkinson’s disease affected different areas of the brains, such as the cerebellum. That the plaintiff’s difficulties revolved around some motor deficits and mild tremors that were controlled by medications and that the deficits caused by the skull fractures were separate and distinct. The physician also maintained that the Parkinson’s disease continues to be mild. The plaintiff was working a house cleaner and the plaintiff would have made approximately $150,000 in income claims.
 The case settled prior to trial for $1,775,000.
 REFERENCE
Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert: Steven Schorr from Abington, PA. Plaintiff’s physical and rehabilitative medicine expert: George Newman, MD from Philadelphia, PA.
Recinos vs. New Jersey non-profit organization which operates private buses.
Docket no. 09-CV-2212.
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Anthony J. Baratta and Andrew P. Baratta of Baratta Russell & Baratta in Huntingdon Valley, PA.
COMMENTARY
The plaintiff had no memory of the accident, there was no independent eyewitness testimony, the defendant bus driver contended that he was turning with a green arrow, and that the plaintiff crossed despite the red light controlling her. The plaintiff would have argued that irrespective of this issue, the defendant who was turning from the opposite direction, would have seen the plaintiff and avoid the impact if he had been paying adequate attention.
Additionally, although there were no eyewitnesses, several individuals heard the crash, immediately ran over and related that the lights changed as they arrived. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert would have maintained that based upon this factor, the timing of the lights, and the evidence that the bus was turning at approximately 15 mph, it was doubtful that the defendant’s testimony of turning on a green arrow was accurate.
Regarding damages, the plaintiff prepared an approximate 45 minute video that included scenes in which the treating and rehabilitation physician utilized medical diagrams to explain the manner in which the preexisting Parkinson’s disease affected different areas of the brain than the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes injured in the subject collision. The presentation also included detailed descriptions from family members and friends regarding the stark changes in the plaintiff’s ability to recall and concentrate that were not present until the subject collision occurred. In this regard, it is felt that this evidence, portions of which would have been presented to the jury if the case had been tried, underscored the plaintiff’s contentions that a jury would be likely to return with a very substantial verdict, and that the use of this evidence during negotiations was very helpful to the plaintiff’s case.