New York — A man and his daughter were crossing a Brooklyn street when they were struck by a car. The accident victims suffered multiple injuries and underwent extensive treatment. They sought the assistance of the experienced injury attorneys at Morrison & Wagner, who helped them win a total of $1,050,000 in compensation for their injuries, pain and suffering.

Illustrative Photo Credit: Benjamin Bousquet [License]

— — —

Father, daughter claimed motorist struck them in crosswalk (VerdictSearch)

Actual Award: $1,050,000

— — —

Court: Kings Supreme, Kings County, New York

Injury Type(s): hip-fracture; leg-scar and/or disfigurement; head; head-headaches; head-concussion; knee-fracture; tibial plateau-fracture; brain-subdural hematoma; chest-fracture; rib; other-sutures; other-laceration; other-physical therapy; pelvis-fracture (fracture, pubic ramus); shoulder-fracture (fracture, clavicle); foot/heel-fracture; toe; mental/psychological-cognition (memory, impairment)

Case Type: Motor Vehicle – Pedestrian

Date: May 14, 2015

Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Stuart Wagner; Morrison & Wagner, LLP; New York, NY
Ira Cooper; trial counsel, Morrison & Wagner, LLP; New York, NY

— — —

Facts:

On Jan. 10, 2010, the plaintiff, 62, an attorney, and his daughter, a minor, were struck by, or collided with, a motor vehicle. The incident occurred on Elm Avenue, alongside its intersection at East 14th Street, in the Manhattan Terrace section of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sustained injuries of his head, his knees, a rib, a shoulder and a toe. His daughter sustained injuries of her hips and a thigh.

The injured man, acting individually and as his daughter’s parent and natural guardian, sued the vehicle’s driver and co-owner and the vehicle’s other co-owner. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The plaintiffs further alleged that co-owner was vicariously liable for the driver’s actions.

Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that the impact occurred in a crosswalk of Elm Avenue. They further claimed that the daughter and her father were struck by the front end of the vehicle. The driver acknowledged that he later noticed a dent of his vehicle’s front end and that the dent did not predate the accident.

The daughter claimed that the vehicle struck her right hip. Her father claimed that he sustained an injury that prevents his recollection of the impact or any other part of the accident, but Justice Richard Velasquez invoked the Noseworthy doctrine, which specifies that certain impairments permit a reduction of a plaintiff’s burden of proof.

The driver claimed that the daughter and her father entered the roadway and initiated contact with one side of his vehicle. Defense counsel noted that the father sustained a fracture of a toe. He suggested that the injury was a result of the toe having been crushed by one of the vehicle’s tires, and he argued that such a scenario could only have occurred if the plaintiff had approached from one side of the vehicle and stepped in front of one of its tires.

The driver claimed that he had scanned a distance of about 10 car lengths and did not notice pedestrians or oncoming traffic. He acknowledged having told a responding police officer that the sun’s glare hindered his view of the roadway, but he claimed that the statement was a result of nervousness during the moments that followed the accident.

Injury:

The injured father sustained a concussion, a laceration of his head, a fracture of his right leg’s tibial plateau, which is a component of the knee, a fracture of his left knee, a fracture of his left shoulder’s clavicle, a fracture of his right foot’s first toe and a fracture of a rib. His head’s injury also produced a subdural hematoma.

The accident victim was placed in an ambulance, and he was transported to Lutheran Medical Center, in Brooklyn. His hospitalization lasted four days.

The plaintiff’s treatment comprised a few weeks of physical therapy. He claimed that his concussion has produced lasting effects that include headaches, impairment of his ability to concentrate and impairment of his short-term memory. He further claimed that his residual effects prevented proper performance of his job’s duties and necessitated an early retirement.

The plaintiff sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The daughter sustained a fracture of her pelvis’s left superior public ramus, which is a component of the left hip, a fracture of her pelvis’s right superior pubic ramus, which is a component of the right hip, and a laceration of her right thigh.

She was placed in an ambulance, and she was transported to Lutheran Medical Center. Her right thigh’s laceration was closed via application of sutures. A doctor determined that she was too young to undergo surgical repair of her fractures, so the fractures were allowed to heal naturally.

The daughter retains a scar of her right thigh, but she does not suffer residual pain or limitations. Her father sought recovery of damages for his daughter’s past and future pain and suffering.

Defense counsel contended that the daughter’s injuries healed within a few weeks.

Defense counsel also contended that the injury victim did not sustain a lasting injury of the brain. The defense’s expert neuropsychiatrist opined that a post-accident psychiatric test produced normal results. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff can resume his job.

Result:

During the trial, the parties negotiated a settlement of the daughter’s claim. The defendants’ insurer agreed to pay $150,000.

The jury found that the defendants were liable for the accident. It determined that the injured man’s damages totaled $900,000. That amount, plus the amount recovered via the settlement, totaled $1.05 million.

Father: $400,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering; $500,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering

Actual Award: $1,050,000

— — —

Judge: Richard Velasquez

Editor’s Comment: This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs’ and defense counsel.