$4.8mm Recovery – Motor Vehicle Negligence – Multiple Vehicle Collision

 $4,800,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – MULTIPLE VEHICLE COLLISION – PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE PUSHED INTO TRAFFIC BY DEFENDANT AND STRUCK BY THIRD VEHICLE – TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY TO 35-YEAR-OLD-FEMALE – PERMANENT DISABILITY WITH ONGOING COGNITIVE DEFICITS CLAIMED.

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA

The plaintiff was a 35-year-old female when her vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant company.  The plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed into oncoming traffic where it was then broadsided by SUV driven by a non-party to the lawsuit.  The defendants did not dispute liability in striking the plaintiff’s car from behind.  However, the defense disputed the nature and severity of the traumatic brain injury which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained as a result of the collision.  Although the collision occurred in Berks County, venue was found in Philadelphia because the defendant company operates beauty schools in the city. 

The plaintiff was stopped in her minivan on her way to work on December 12, 2008, waiting to turn left from Bernville Road onto Church Road in Penn Township, Berks County, when she was struck from behind by the vehicle driven by the defendant driver.  The plaintiff’s minivan was pushed forward and across the oncoming lane of traffic where she was struck broadside by an SUV traveling 45 miles per hour.

The second impact toppled the plaintiff’s van onto its side and into a guardrail.  The plaintiff struck her head and was found unconscious at the scene.  She did not regain full consciousness until three days later.  The plaintiff was discharged from the hospital 12 days post-accident.

The plaintiff’s physical injuries included a laceration to the side of her and onto her ear which left a small scar near her right ear.  The most serious injury reported by the plaintiff’s physicians was a traumatic brain injury which was causally related to the accident.  The plaintiff claimed that she suffers ongoing cognitive deficits, including memory problems.

The plaintiff testified that fatigue has been an overwhelming problem since the accident and that any prolonged physical or mental exertion drains her.  The plaintiff also contended that she suffers from continuing intermittent (but largely improved) double vision in one eye.

The plaintiff is married with no children.  Although she and her husband had no plans to have children, they claimed that it was a possibility they had left open.  After the accident, however, the plaintiff alleged that she is no longer capable of having children and that the choice has been essentially taken away from them.

The plaintiff’s family operated a True Value hardware franchise and the plaintiff was a full-time employee of the company and a 20% owner at the time of the collision.  The plaintiff’s father continued to pay her salary after the accident, but the plaintiff claimed that she had been largely unable to return to the store to perform any meaningful work.  The plaintiff contended that she would go to the store every few weeks to help with the books and minor store chores, but could not perform at her pre-accident level.

The plaintiff’s vocational expert opined that the plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled from employment.  The plaintiff alleged that her plan to take over the family business in the future is no longer possible as a result of her accident-related injuries.  The plaintiff’s economist estimated the plaintiff’s future wage loss to be between $1.29 million and $3.6 million.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s accident-related brain injury was mild and she had largely recovered to the point that she is capable of returning to work if she so desired.  The defendants also argued that plaintiff had made significant, steady improvement, would continue to do so over time and that there was no way of determining whether her injuries are permanent.  The defendant’s economist provided a report which valued the plaintiff’s future wage loss at $0 - $950,000 based on the vocational experts’ reports.

The case settled prior to trial for a total of $4,800,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s economic expert: Andrew Verzilli from Lansdale, PA. Plaintiff’s neuro-ophthalmology expert: Nicholas Volpe from Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiff’s neuropsychology expert: Joely Esposito from Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiff’s physiatry expert: Daniel Yeager from Allentown, PA. Plaintiff’s psychology expert: Thomas Lane from Allentown, PA. Plaintiff’s vocational expert: Michael Smychynsky from Wyomissing, PA.

Smith vs. Defendant. Case no. 02-2009-00778: Judge Jacqueline F. Allen, 09-21-10

Attorneys for plaintiff: Andrew P. Baratta and Anthony J. Baratta of Baratta, Russell & Baratta in Huntingdon Valley, PA.

COMMENTARY

Like many traumatic brain injury cases, the plaintiff in this action appeared physically fit and recovered from her injuries and her CAT scans were clear by the time serious settlement negotiations began.  The defendant stressed the remarkable improvement that the plaintiff had made in the two-years since the accident.  The defense argued that there was no way to determine how long or how severely the plaintiff would be impacted by her brain injury.  Even the plaintiff’s experts could not say for certain whether the plaintiff’s cognitive deficits and fatigue were permanent conditions.  Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel took great pains to present a complete picture, including video testimonials, photographs and records, of the plaintiff’s life prior to the accident.  A mini-movie was filmed to document the plaintiff’s previous life, the collision, the plaintiff’s resulting injuries, and the nature of the plaintiff’s current life as a result of her brain injury.  The “movie” showed the plaintiff’s credibility and demonstrated the full emotional impact a jury would experience listening to this young plaintiff’s story.  The plaintiff also presented a significant future wage loss claim centered on her plans to take over the family hardware business, and the argument that she now incapable of doing so.  The defendant hired two separate vocational experts, one of who said that the plaintiff was able to work in various fields of employment.  The other defense expert reported that it was simply too soon to tell whether the plaintiff would be able to return to work full time.  The case settled after mediation for a total of $4.8 million.  As unfortunate as the plaintiff was to have been the victim of the defendant’s negligence, she was extraordinarily lucky, first have survived; but secondly, to have had available to her sufficient insurance coverage from the defendants to compensate her for her injuries.