Case Results
Gordon & Silber Obtains Defense Verdict for Operator of an Automobile Who Made
Illegal "U" Turn — November 2008.
Type of Case: Automobile Accident. Assured made illegal "U" turn striking plaintiff's vehicle.
Venue: New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
Background Facts: This matter arose out of an automobile accident that occurred in 2004
when the plaintiff, traveling westbound on Jerusalem Avenue in Hempstead, New York,
was struck by our insured, who was making an illegal u-turn from a parked position. The
plaintiff alleged an exacerbation of a pre-existing right knee injury that required
arthroscopic surgery and the need for future knee replacement.
Special Problems: Plaintiff argued he had the right of way and our assured negligently
entered the flow of traffic from a parked position while performing an illegal "U" turn
across two lanes of traffic and a double yellow line. This account was confirmed by the
responding police officer. Plaintiff underwent right knee surgery several months after
the accident and his surgeon and other orthopedists recommended future knee
replacement. Plaintiff had been unable to return to work as demolition worker since the
date of the accident and complained of continued severe right knee pain with his having
to use a cane. Despite acknowledging having a pre-existing knee condition, the plaintiff
had been working as a construction worker allegedly without complaint at the time of the
accident.
Our Strategy: Although we contested the claim our assured made an illegal u-turn, and
were able to expose several errors and problems with the report of the responding officer,
our main defense was medical causation. We cross-examined the plaintiff on the fact
that he did not report knee pain to his orthopedist until six weeks following the accident
as well as on his long medical and surgical history including a prior car accident resulting
in right knee injury and surgery, a work related accident resulting in left shoulder and left
knee surgery and a documented history of osteoarthritis. We presented evidence from an
expert orthopedist, neurologist and radiologist to support our position that plaintiff's
injuries were unrelated to the car accident. We argued that the plaintiff was a 72 years
old who had been employed in the demolition business for over 35 years, and thus, would
have needed a knee replacement notwithstanding the accident.
Result: The jury returned a defense verdict within 1 ½ hours after being given the case
for deliberation. They found that although our client was responsible for the accident, the
claimed injuries were not causally related.
|