Articles Posted in Car Accidents

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case that was brought by a man who was rear-ended by a truck while he was stopped on the highway. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s potentially inconsistent statements rose to the level of fraud on the court. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff disclosed all of the necessary information; however, the fact that some of the information he provided was contradictory was relevant to his credibility, which should be weighed by a jury.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in an accident while he was stopped on the highway. The driver of the truck that struck him was later determined to be drunk. About four years later, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the other driver, as well as the driver’s employer.

Two months after the plaintiff filed this case, he was involved in another rear-end collision. This case involves the differences in how the plaintiff described the second accident. When he filed an insurance claim after the second accident, he described it as “hard impact very fast.” He also explained that the rear bumper was heavily damaged. However, the plaintiff’s testimony in this case characterized the accident as a minor one that only involved a “few dollars” worth of damage. In fact, the plaintiff initially did not even disclose the second accident when he was asked whether he was involved in any other accidents.

Continue reading →

Earlier this month, a Delaware appellate court issued a written opinion affirming a jury’s decision to award a personal injury plaintiff a zero-dollar award despite determining that the defendant caused the accident that the plaintiff claimed caused her injuries. In the case, Rash v. Moczulski, the court determined that the jury’s award was reasonable, given the circumstances and the evidence presented at trial.

The Facts

The Rashes were involved in a car accident that they alleged was caused by Moczulski. After a personal injury case was filed, and a jury heard the case, the jury determined that the Rashes “sustained one or more injuries proximately caused by” the Moczulski. However, the jury awarded the Rashes zero dollars for their injuries. According to the court’s written opinion, the defense presented evidence suggesting the “nature and extent” of the Rashes’ injuries were exaggerated, and the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages while the trial was pending.

After the verdict was issued, the plaintiff asked the judge for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was inadequate. The judge denied the motion, explaining that “the exact nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury and plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his injuries through treatment made identifying and compensating the injury quite problematic.” However, the judge amended the jury’s award to provide $10,000 to the Rashes. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in the case of Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church. The case was brought by a parishioner against the church after the parishioner was seriously injured in a pedestrian accident when attempting to walk from a church parking lot to the church. The court determined that, although the injury in a premises liability lawsuit must normally arise on the property owner’s land to be successful, that isn’t always the case.

The Facts of the Case

Grace Family Church was located on a busy five-lane road. Immediately next to the church was a parking lot. However, since the parking lot was small, it would often fill up. To accommodate the growing demand for parking spaces, the church contracted with a nearby business owner to use his parking lot as an overflow lot when the smaller main lot was full.

The church had volunteer parking attendants who would direct traffic from the main lot to the overflow low when the main lot was full. There were also parking attendants in the overflow lot, showing parishioners where they could park. Importantly, however, there were no attendants to help the parishioners cross the street to get to the church.

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court of West Virginia recently released an opinion that overturned a circuit court’s decision granting an plaintiff a new trial on the issue of knee injuries he was alleged to have received in an accident with the defendant. The plaintiff will still be entitled to the verdict he received to compensate him for other injuries incurred in the accident, although his claim to compensation for his knee injuries was found by the state high court to be unsupported by the evidence at trial, causing the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s decision to grant a new trial.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in a Rear-End Crash But May Have Had a Pre-Existing Knee Condition

The plaintiff in the case of Harnish v. Corra was a man who was injured after the defendant rear-ended his vehicle while he was waiting to make a left turn into a parking lot. The defendant admitted that he was at fault for the accident. After the crash, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, requesting over $25,000 in damages for medical expenses related to the accident. Over $15,000 of the plaintiff’s requested damages were attributed to a knee injury he had allegedly suffered in the accident.

At a jury trial, the defendant admitted that the accident was the cause of the plaintiff’s back and neck injuries, although he presented testimony that the knee injury was the result of a pre-existing condition and that the medical expenses related to the injury should not be awarded to the plaintiff. After the parties had presented their cases, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages for his neck and back injuries, but they declined to award any damages related to the alleged knee injury.

Continue reading →