Jury Awards Only 0.63% of Plaintiff’s Ask in a Left-Turn Accident, Conceding Liability
On February 7, 2024, Michael J. Cody and Danielle M. Boyd secured a successful result at trial in Orange County regarding a left-turn accident with conceding liability. The clients included an Orange County dealership and its employee, a courtesy shuttle driver, acting in the course and scope of employment during the accident. Prior to trial, Defendant made a 998 offer for $450,000 while Plaintiff made a 998 offer for $650,000.
Per testimony, the accident occurred near an active school zone, with a posted 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. According to police body camera footage of the accident, there were schoolchildren in the crosswalk. Plaintiff admitted to driving at 40 miles per hour and testified that her foot was not on the brake at the time of impact. Her airbags did not deploy.
Defendant shuttle driver testified that he saw Plaintiff’s vehicle approaching but stated that there was enough space to execute a left turn, and that he did not ignore the rules of the road. As Defendant began his left turn, Defendant and Plaintiff’s vehicles contacted, with the impact occurring at the front right bumper of Plaintiff’s vehicle. There was conflicting testimony presented by a nonparty involved in the accident as to whether the nonparty had an impact with the shuttle driver’s vehicle first or with Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Following the incident, Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven from the scene of the accident by her boyfriend. Plaintiff was then transported by ambulance to a local hospital where she was discharged the same day.
Defense accident reconstruction/biomechanical expert agreed with Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert that the delta-v of the impact was 7-9 mph. He also testified as to the crash duration time and the g-force to Plaintiff’s body. He testified that the impact Plaintiff felt upon impact would cause muscle sprain/strain, but nothing traumatic and nothing to cause a disc injury. Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert did not calculate the crash duration time or the force to Plaintiff’s body.
In the seven months following the incident, Plaintiff attended seven chiropractor appointments, received one injection to the cervical spine and ultimately underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at two levels. Plaintiff’s spine surgeon described the surgery that Plaintiff underwent for the jury. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon relied on one image from the MRI of the cervical spine to explain why the surgery was warranted. He was unable to tell the jury whether Plaintiff had pre-existing bulges and protrusions or if they were caused by the accident.
Defense orthopedic surgeon testified that in reviewing Plaintiff’s imaging, the objective evidence in medical records, and the independent medical examination, Plaintiff did not have structural damage to her spine; she had pre-existing degenerative bulges. There was no finding in the post-accident MRIs of traumatic herniation or significant narrowing around the nerves. This was confirmed by the emergency room doctor and the emergency room radiologist as Plaintiff had a normal neural examination and normal imaging for her cervical spine – i.e. no disc injury. Defense neuroradiologist further explained the post-accident MRI films and the day of accident CT scan in depth. He testified that there was no nerve impingement in the cervical spine at the levels Plaintiff’s spine surgeon was claiming were at issue.
Defense orthopedic surgeon largely testified that Plaintiff’s cervical spine surgery was unwarranted as there was no nerve to decompress. Defense orthopedic surgeon confirmed that the arm and hand symptoms Plaintiff was experiencing were not due to her neck because there was no nerve compression. He also testified about what would be reasonable care and the reasonable costs of such care. Following treatment in 2021, Plaintiff did not require further treatment. Defense orthopedic surgeon testified that Plaintiff did not undergo sufficient conservative treatment before resorting to interventional measures.
Plaintiff’s boyfriend and sister-in-law testified to her pre and post-accident status, stating that the accident affected Plaintiff’s ability to go on outings with her boyfriend’s daughter. Plaintiff also presented testimony of being unable to walk her dog and noted that she still had pain after her cervical spine surgery.
In closing arguments, Plaintiff asked for over $11,000,000. Plaintiff’s ask consisted of over $2,900,000 in past noneconomic damages and $8,100,000 in future noneconomic damages. Further, Plaintiff requested $152,100 in past medical specials. Defense gave different options to the jury for past medical expenses and told the jury there were no future noneconomic damages to award and no future medical expenses to award.
Result: The jury returned a verdict: $20,000 in past medical expenses, no future medical expenses, $50,000 in past noneconomic damages, and no future noneconomic damages. The jury found Plaintiff negligent and that her negligence caused her injuries. The jury apportioned 30% fault on Plaintiff, and the remainder on Defendant, resulting in a jury award of $49,000. Defendant was entitled to costs.