Jury Decides Driver And City To Pay In Excess of $9.0 Million For Motor Vehicle Accident

Parents typically think that their children will not be in danger just by going to school. It is not in their world view that their son or daughter will be injured in a vehicle accident while crossing the street just in front of their school. After all, don’t towns and counties where the school is based make sure that there are signs lowering how fast vehicles can go in areas close to schools and controlling intersections in the area of the school with stop signs and traffic lights? Further, don't drivers typically take extra precautions in school zones? Do not be so convinced.

Consider the very real case in which a car went through a mid-block crosswalk that was adjacent to a high school while a 15 year old student was crossing the street. As a result of the accident, the student sustained a traumatic brain injury. He was in a coma for three weeks. He required in excess of two months of strenuous rehabilitation therapy. The medical bills came to about $700,000.

The long term outcomes of the injury include cognitive disabilities in memory, speech, and executive function. They also include physical disabilities in coordination and in gait and balance disturbances. On his return to high school he was unable to handle regular classes and had to start special education classes.

Given the nature and extent of his impairments he requires life-care. The life-care plan includes estimated future medical expenses up to $3.5 million. And because of his disabilities he endured a loss of earning capacity of nearly $2.2 million. This is a measure of the difference in the income he was anticipated to have had in the event he had not been hurt and the lesser income he will probably be able to earn due to the limitations of his accident related disabilities.

The law firm that handled this claim brought suit on behalf of the student’s parents, both individually and on their son’s behalf, against the driver and against the county. The driver did not deny that she was at fault yet claimed that the county and, yes, the victim were also to blame. The city, in turn, claimed they were not liable either and that it was the driver and the victim who were to blame.

To work up the case the law firm retained an accident reconstruction expert, a physician specializing in in pediatric neurology and traumatic brain injury, a life-care planning specialist, and an economist. The law firm reported that they took the case to trial. The jury reportedly found that the driver was seventy nine percent responsible the county was 20% responsible, and the student was 1% at fault for the accident. As per to the report by the law firm, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $9.14 million on behalf of the student and his parents.

The jury was obviously convinced that there were things that not just the driver but also the county could and should have done which would have avoided this accident. Perhaps every county ought to look to this lawsuit as a model of a foreseeable and avoidable catastrophe and take measures to make the region around their school safe for children. And possibly in doing the right thing they may prevent another horrible accident that extensive alters the future of a young person. And they might in addition safe themselves from further significant jury verdicts.