Miami-Dade County Plaintiff Concludes Rear-End Collision with Dismissal

On March 18, 2015, a motor vehicle accident occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit on February 6, 2018, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, alleging the defendant's negligent driving caused the incident and resulted in bodily injury, pain and suffering, lost earnings, and medical expenses. The defendant responded by arguing the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, failed to mitigate damages, and that a third party was responsible for the accident. Both sides presented expert testimony; the plaintiff offered a physical medicine and life care planning expert, while the defendant utilized experts in diagnostic radiology, orthopedic spinal surgery, and injury biomechanics. On June 21, 2019, a jury found in favor of the defendant. The court subsequently entered a final judgment on June 25, 2019, affirming the jury's verdict.

A personal injury lawsuit was filed following a motor vehicle accident caused by a driver under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff sought damages related to injuries sustained in the incident. During the proceedings, the plaintiff presented testimony from an expert in economics, with an affiliation in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, who discussed medical care costs and forensic economics. The defendant offered testimony from a neurological surgeon, with affiliations in West Palm Beach, Florida, to address the plaintiff's claimed injuries. After hearing the arguments and evidence, the jury returned a verdict awarding $0 to the plaintiff.

On February 12, 2014, a plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist claim against her own insurance carrier following a multi-vehicle collision. The plaintiff alleged a tortfeasor struck her vehicle from behind, pushing it into a car in front, which then struck a fourth vehicle. The defendant insurance carrier contended the plaintiff first struck the car in front of her, causing a sudden stop that resulted in the subsequent impact by the tortfeasor's vehicle. The tortfeasor's underlying liability policy limit of $10,000 was tendered prior to the UIM trial. A loss of consortium claim brought by the plaintiff's husband settled before trial. The plaintiff sought damages, claiming the collision caused headaches, neck pain, mid-back pain, low-back pain with radiculopathy, and a traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficiencies. She was diagnosed with lumbar disc herniations and underwent a double-level fusion. The plaintiff sought compensation for past lost wages and loss of future earning capacity. The defense maintained that evidence indicated the plaintiff caused the accident by rear-ending the vehicle in front of her before being struck from behind. The defendant's medical experts opined that the plaintiff's reported injuries were not caused by the collision. The defense argued that the plaintiff's medical records documented long-standing chronic complaints, including back pain, neck pain, headaches, and lower extremity issues, which they attributed to pre-existing conditions such as excess weight, diabetes, and long-term diuretic use. The jury found no negligence on the part of the tortfeasor that was a legal cause of injury to the plaintiff. A defense verdict was subsequently entered. The plaintiff was expected to file a post-trial motion.

In February 2014, a plaintiff was involved in a multi-vehicle collision on U.S. 19 in Clearwater. The plaintiff's vehicle was struck from the rear by a trailing car. Following an initial settlement from the other motorist's insurer, the plaintiff sued her own underinsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co., seeking further recovery for claimed injuries. The plaintiff alleged she was stopped behind other vehicles when her car was struck from behind, propelling it forward into a preceding vehicle. She claimed to have sustained injuries to her back, head, and neck, including multiple disc herniations, brain abnormalities, leg radiculopathy, and urinary incontinence. The plaintiff also alleged a traumatic brain injury, leading to memory problems and difficulty speaking, and sought past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering damages. The plaintiff's accident-reconstruction expert testified in support of her account. The defense contended the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, arguing she first rear-ended the vehicle in front of her before being struck from behind. The defense presented emergency room records stating the plaintiff told doctors she was unable to stop in time and hit the vehicle ahead. A defense accident-reconstruction expert opined the plaintiff was partially liable. The defense further argued that the plaintiff's leg pain was due to pre-existing diabetic peripheral neuropathy, her herniations were degenerative, and her incontinence stemmed from medication taken for years. The defense disputed the traumatic brain injury claim, noting the plaintiff's own doctor documented only brain abnormalities, not a TBI, and that the plaintiff had demonstrated no speaking problems during a job interview. After a one-week trial, the jury deliberated for 1.5 hours and returned a defense verdict, awarding $0 to the plaintiff. The jury found that the compact car driver was not negligent in a manner that legally caused injury to the plaintiff.

On May 10, 2015, a motor vehicle collision occurred on I-295 North along the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville, FL. The plaintiff, who was operating a vehicle, alleged that the defendant negligently struck his vehicle, resulting in injuries. The plaintiff claimed he had sustained minor injuries in a previous rear-end collision in January 2015 and was still receiving treatment at the time of the subject collision. The plaintiff contended that the injuries sustained from both collisions could not be apportioned or separated, and therefore the defendant was liable for the combined injuries. The defendant admitted negligence for the May 2015 collision but disputed the extent of damages and causation. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, which contributed to his losses. Both sides presented medical and vocational experts to support their arguments. A jury subsequently found the defendant 10% negligent and the plaintiff 90% negligent. The jury awarded zero damages for future medical bills and future loss of earnings, concluding that the plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury.