$1.1 Million Recovery for Motor Vehicle Negligence

$1,100,000 Recovery, including $110,000 settlement with co-defendant property owner

The plaintiff driver, in his 50s, contended that the defendant driver traveled forward and made a
left turn from the driveway on the defendant’s property without making observations, colliding with the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, he suffered herniation at L4-L5 and L5-S1 that required fusion surgery. The plaintiff contended that because of severe continuing pain, the plaintiff also required the surgical insertion of a dorsal column stimulator that provides limited relief only. The plaintiff further maintained that he suffered a concussion and post concussion syndrome which will permanently cause intermittent headaches. Finally, the plaintiff also maintained that one of the consequences of the impact, that caused severe damage to both cars, was PTSD that was causing anxiety, nightmares, and flashbacks of the event.

The defendant homeowners’ large parcel of property contained two driveways which had entrances approximately 200 yards apart. The defendant driver had entered through the other driveway, which the plaintiff maintained, would provide a better view of the roadway when exiting. The plaintiff contended that the trees and shrubbery next to the driveway from which the defendant turned left was higher than that permitted by the municipal ordinance and substantially contributed to the incident. The defendants maintained that roadway was improperly designed in such a manner that it would be virtually impossible for a driver turning from the driveway to have a sufficient view of the roadway. The public entity was entitled to design immunity under the Torts Claims Act.

The plaintiff contended that since the defendant driver could not see down the road, she should not have turned. The plaintiff maintained that the nearby second driveway from which the defendant driver entered afforded a better view, and once the defendant driver realized that she could not make adequate observations, she should have decided to use the other driveway.

It was undisputed that the plaintiff had preexisting degenerative disc disease, but the plaintiff maintained that prior to the accident, he was essentially asymptomatic, having made complaints of localized lower back pain to a physician several weeks earlier. The plaintiff had not, however, required more than very brief conservative treatment.

The plaintiff maintained that he developed severe radiating pain the lumbar area shortly after the accident and the plaintiff’s orthopedist contended that herniations at L4-L5 and L5-S1 were confirmed by MRI. After a course of conservative treatment proved to be inadequate, the plaintiff underwent fusion surgery.

The plaintiff contended that despite this surgery and the subsequent insertion of a dorsal column stimulator, he will permanently suffer significant pain and limitations.

The automobiles suffered extensive property damage. The plaintiff contended that he developed PTSD after the accident which was causing anxiety, depression and flashbacks of the event. The plaintiff underwent psychotherapy for a period and the plaintiff’s examining psychiatrist maintained that the plaintiff reached the pinnacle of his recovery. The physician contended that the plaintiff will probably suffer the lingering effects of the condition for the foreseeable future.

The plaintiff also contended that the closed head injury caused a cognitive deficit involving memory and concentration that was confirmed by a battery of neuropsychological testing, and which is permanent in nature. The defendant’s neuropsychologist denied that the plaintiff suffered any prolonged psychological reaction or cognitive deficits. The plaintiff had worked as a diesel mechanic/instructor at a school of diesel mechanics and also worked part-time in the diesel repair business. The plaintiff maintained that he attempted to return, but was unsuccessful, both because of the physical limitations and difficulties concentrating. The plaintiff would have presented several co-workers who would have offered “before” and “after” testimony. The plaintiff maintained that he will be permanently precluded from returning as a diesel mechanic. The plaintiff would have introduced evidence of future lost wages and the costs of a life care plan that exceeded $1,250,000.

The case settled prior to trial for $1,100,000, including $990,000 from the defendant driver and the homeowners’ $110,000.

REFERENCE
Plaintiff’s vocational expert: Richard Schuster. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert (fusion): Nasser Ani from Hazlet, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert (dorsal column stimulator): Bruce Rosenblum from Tinton Falls, NJ. Plaintiff’s examining psychiatrist expert: Gregory Rasin from Union, NJ.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7
New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist expert: Brett Prince from Brick, NJ. Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist expert: David Mahalick from Maplewood, NJ. Plaintiff’s radiologist expert: Natalie Damien from East Brunswick, NJ.

Defendant’s neuroradiologist expert: Douglas Noble from Oradell, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedist expert: Robert Warren from Pt. Pleasant, NJ. Gorman vs. Blundell, et al. 9-08. Attorneys for plaintiff: Raymond A. Gill, Jr. of Gill & Chamas in Woodbridge, NJ and Randolph H. Wolf of Red Bank, NJ.

COMMENTARY:
The defendants had maintained that the cause of the accident was improper design of the roadway, creating the blind spot for which the public entity would be immune. The plaintiff would have stressed that irrespective of the configuration of the roadway, the defendant driver simply should not have turned left from the driveway when she could not see down the roadway in the direction from which the defendant proceeded. In this regard, it is felt that the evidence that a short time earlier, the defendant driver had entered the property on a second nearby driveway that did not have the same site line issues, was particularly significant and would have enabled the plaintiff to argue that once the defendant driver reached the end of the driveway from which she traveled, she should have realized that the other driveway would be safer to use.

Regarding damages, although it was undisputed that the plaintiff had longstanding degenerative disc disease, the plaintiff stressed that any prior difficulties were short term and involved localized pain only. Additionally, it is thought that the evidence of very severe impact damage could well have had a significant effect on the jury if the case had been tried. Finally, the plaintiff would have made effective use of lay testimony in the form of co-workers who would have described the manner in which the plaintiff had difficulties with memory and concentration and with doing the physical aspect of the diesel mechanic’s job after the accident occurred.