Motor Vehicle Liability

The plaintiff's decedent, a 16-year-old minor, died when his motor vehicle left the road and struck a number of trees. The decedent’s estate brought claims against the driver of another vehicle who was allegedly racing with the decedent, as well as the two passengers in that vehicle. The plaintiff alleged the passengers were liable as a result of engaging in a joint enterprise with the other driver by encouraging him to race with the decedent. The plaintiff also alleged that the passengers could be held liable to the plaintiffs under a simple theory of negligence, and that the mother of one passenger negligently supervised her son.

We argued that the passenger could only be held liable under a theory of joint enterprise, rather than simple negligence, and that the elements for joint enterprise were absent. Specifically, the passenger did not have an ability or right to control the vehicle in which he was a passenger and, therefore, did not engage in a joint enterprise with the driver. We further argued that the defendant parent was not liable because there was no evidence that her son caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s accident, nor of any propensity on the part of her son to engage in racing activities. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant passenger and defendant parent.

The plaintiff was stopped behind a school bus when she felt a “light” rear-end impact by the defendant’s vehicle. Unbeknownst to the parties, the defendant’s front bumper had lodged underneath plaintiff’s rear bumper. When the plaintiff moved her vehicle forward, the defendant’s vehicle was dragged with it, causing a second rear-end impact. The plaintiff claimed a brief loss of consciousness as a result of impact, as well as neck and back injuries. She was treated at a hospital, where diagnostic testing was negative. The plaintiff also sought treatment from her primary care physician and a chiropractor.

At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she was reliving the accident repeatedly and seeing a psychiatrist. We filed a motion to preclude medical records and bills on the theory that a portion of the medical records and bills stemmed from treatment unrelated to the subject accident. The court granted the motion in part, excluding a portion of the records and bills and reducing the total amount of the relevant medical bills to below $2,000. The defendant then moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff now failed to reach the tort threshold. The court allowed the motion and dismissed the case.

The plaintiff, a passenger in her husband’s vehicle, alleged that the defendant rear-ended her vehicle, allegedly causing lower back and neck injuries. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff’s vehicle had veered into the defendant’s lane of travel.

The plaintiff’s husband testified at trial that he pulled into the middle lane of travel approximately thirty seconds before being rear-ended by the defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiff concurred with her husband’s testimony, but with slight inconsistencies to her prior deposition testimony. When the defendant testified at trial, he stated that the plaintiff’s husband veered into the middle lane of travel suddenly and without warning, leaving the defendant no opportunity to avoid a collision. The jury returned with a defense verdict. Plaintiff’s counsel filed motions for a new trial and to amend her pleadings to conform with the evidence, but the motions were denied.

In the early morning hours the plaintiff, driving on a road with one lane of travel each way divided by double solid yellow lines, came upon two police cruisers and a suspect’s vehicle. The plaintiff acknowledged crossing the double yellow lines to pass the three parked cars. The plaintiff alleged, however, that the defendant was distracted by the cruisers and that he, too, crossed the double lines. As a result of the ensuing accident, the plaintiff claimed he sustained soft tissue injuries to his neck and back.

Based on the testimony we extracted from a police officer and the parties, the judge concluded that the plaintiff was 70 percent negligent and the defendant 30 percent negligent. As the negligence of the plaintiff exceeded that of the defendant, the plaintiff was barred from any recovery. The defendant again prevailed after a second trial before a jury.

The minor plaintiff was asleep in the passenger seat of her mother’s car during a snowstorm when the car skidded, stopped and was hit by the defendant’s car. The minor suffered a broken jaw, contusions and abrasions to the face, seven broken teeth, a broken collar bone and a broken left ankle.

At the time of the trial the plaintiff had already received the $25,000 policy limit from her mother’s insurance policy and was proceeding against the defendant under a joint tortfeasor theory, where a finding that the defendant had been even one percent negligent would have resulted in a verdict against the defendant. We successfully argued that the defendant was not negligent to any degree, relying in part on the sudden emergency defense.

Two cars collided at an intersection. The plaintiff, who claimed soft-tissue injuries to the neck and back as well as headaches, said that she was proceeding through a green light when the second driver drove through a red light, causing the collision. We were able to draw testimony from both parties and an independent witness indicating that the plaintiff proceeded through a red light at the time of the accident. The plaintiff, who was traveling eastbound at the time of the accident, said that the sun was shining in her face and that she experienced difficulty with her vision as a result. Additionally, the testimony of the independent witness corroborated the defendant’s story that he proceeded into the intersection only after the traffic light turned green. The judge found for the defendant. The defendant again prevailed after a second trial before a jury.