Gretna Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Rear-End Collision

On April 19, 2018, a driver pulled an F-350 pickup truck from a parking lot onto Maplewood Avenue in Sulphur, Louisiana. The plaintiff angled the truck into a left-turn lane, partially blocking a center lane. Simultaneously, the defendant, distracted by a cellphone GPS, rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle in a Ford Explorer. The impact was moderate, causing significant damage to the defendant's vehicle, while the plaintiff's F-350 sustained minor damage. The plaintiff later sought treatment for multiple injuries, including cervical and shoulder surgeries, and reported a need for future medical interventions. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant, initially in Calcasieu Parish before its removal to federal court in Lake Charles. The plaintiff sought $4.75 million, including economic losses for past and future medical expenses and lost wages, as well as non-economic damages. The defendant admitted the collision but argued the plaintiff shared fault by blocking the lane. The defense presented an accident expert who calculated the impact on the plaintiff's truck as minor and a medical expert who attributed many of the plaintiff's conditions to pre-existing degenerative issues unrelated to the crash. After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated for three hours, finding the defendant 70% at fault and the plaintiff 30% at fault. The jury awarded the plaintiff $150,000 for past medical expenses, $50,000 for future medical expenses, and $80,000 for lost wages. Non-economic damages included $75,000 for pain and suffering, $50,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, and $50,000 for disability. The jury rejected an award for mental anguish. The raw verdict totaled $430,000, which was reduced by the plaintiff's comparative fault to a final judgment of $301,000.

On March 4, 2013, a collision occurred in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on Monroe Street. The plaintiff was stopped at a stop sign when a vehicle driven by the defendant, an employee of Cequel Communications, rolled forward and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The incident reportedly occurred after the defendant's foot slipped off the brake. The investigating officer noted extremely minor vehicle contact, stating it merely transferred dust between the vehicles, and neither vehicle required repairs. Despite the minor nature of the collision, the plaintiff later sought treatment for a multi-level cervical and disc herniation injury, which a chiropractor confirmed. The plaintiff incurred approximately $32,000 in medical bills and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the defendant and his employer. The defense argued that the collision was too minor to have caused a compensable injury and that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were pre-existing and unrelated to the incident. An accident reconstruction expert and an orthopedic expert provided testimony for the defense. The case proceeded to a two-day trial focused on causation. The jury ultimately found that the defendant was negligent in the rear-end collision. However, the jury also concluded that this negligence did not cause injury to the plaintiff. Consequently, the jury did not reach a decision on damages, and no judgment had been entered several weeks after the trial concluded.

On April 19, 2018, a collision occurred on Maplewood Avenue in Sulphur, Louisiana. The plaintiff's heavy-duty pickup, angled from a parking lot, partially obstructed a center lane. The defendant, distracted by a cellphone GPS, rear-ended the plaintiff's truck. The defendant's vehicle was significantly damaged, while the plaintiff's sustained minor damage. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit, alleging extensive injuries, including multiple surgeries and future medical care, seeking $4.75 million in damages. The defendant admitted the collision but argued the plaintiff contributed to the incident by obstructing traffic. Defense experts cited a minor impact force and attributed the plaintiff's medical conditions primarily to pre-existing degenerative issues. After a five-day federal trial in Lake Charles, a jury found 70% defendant fault and 30% plaintiff fault. The plaintiff was awarded $280,000 for medical expenses and lost wages. Non-economic damages totaled $175,000 for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and disability, with no award for mental anguish. The raw verdict of $430,000 led to a final judgment of $301,000 after fault allocation.

On March 2, 2011, a truck driver was traveling eastbound on I-12 in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when the driver slowed for traffic congestion. The plaintiff's vehicle was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer operated by a defendant driver and owned by a defendant trucking company. The plaintiff sustained multiple injuries in the collision, including spinal cord damage and a herniated lumbar disc requiring surgical repair. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit on April 27, 2011, against the driver, the trucking company, and their insurers in federal court in Louisiana. Prior to trial, the defendants stipulated to liability for the collision. Consequently, the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages, with both sides presenting expert testimony regarding the plaintiff's injuries, vocational rehabilitation needs, and economic losses. On January 28, 2015, a jury awarded the plaintiff $442,500. The award included $95,000 for past medical expenses, $18,000 for future medical expenses, $65,000 for past, present, and future mental anguish and physical pain and suffering, $35,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, $175,000 for loss of earning capacity, and $54,500 for past lost wages. Judgment was formally entered against the defendants on February 4, 2015.

A 2005 Pontiac Aztec, operated by the defendant driver, rear-ended a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado on SH 349 in Midland, Texas. The plaintiff, who operated the Silverado, subsequently claimed disabling injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of function, lost wages, and incurred medical and economic losses as a result of the collision. The plaintiff then filed a breach of contract action against his insurer, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company, in the Louisiana District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District. The lawsuit alleged that the insurer failed to pay a reasonable amount for damages and losses under the plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, despite formal tender demands. The plaintiff sought judgment for damages, costs, and attorney fees. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The defendant insurer admitted and denied parts of the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses, including failure to mitigate damages, comparative fault, and acting in good faith. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.