Six Consecutive Defense Verdicts in 2024 to Date

The plaintiff claimed she sustained serious injuries including a lumbar fracture and chronic pain syndrome among other injuries. The plaintiff offered testimony from an expert neurologist to support her injury claim. The defense offered their own expert neurologist, as well as a neurosurgeon, who contested the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.

During the trial, the parties presented starkly different versions of events to the jury. While both parties testified that they had spent time together the night before the motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff denied that she had engaged in a romantic interlude with the defendant in the hours leading up to the accident. The defendant insisted that the parties were romantically involved. Moreover, their accounts of the accident differed substantially. The plaintiff testified she was unsure of what happened immediately before the impact, and her attorney argued that the accident was caused by the defendant not paying attention to the roadway and driving in an unsafe manner. The defendant testified that the plaintiff saw an incoming call from his ex-girlfriend on his cell phone and became extremely angry as a result. Further, the defendant testified that the plaintiff had taken PCP before the collision. The defendant testified that the plaintiff began hitting him and screaming at him about the telephone call, which interfered with his ability to drive.

The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the defendant driver.

The defendant testified that he stopped his truck at the stop sign and checked both ways for oncoming traffic. Seeing none, the defendant pulled his vehicle forward and was most of the way into his right turn onto the roadway when the motorcyclist struck the rear driver’s side door portion of the truck. The plaintiff and his motorcycle became wedged underneath the defendant’s truck. The defendant admitted that he neither saw nor heard the plaintiff before impact and that his driver’s side window was open at the time.

The plaintiff claimed serious and permanent injuries as a result of the collision. He was hospitalized for about three months and is now permanently and totally disabled as a result.

The plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist testified at trial that the defendant’s view downhill and to the left was obstructed when he pulled from the stop sign. Further, plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant was negligent and should have used more caution when making his turn given the extended length of his truck with the attached trailer. The responding police conducted an accident reconstruction which determined the plaintiff motorcyclist had been speeding and that his speed was a major contributing factor to the collision. The defendant’s accident reconstruction expert concurred with the opinions of the Norwalk Police as to the speed of the motorcycle when the brakes were applied and testified that the collision would not have occurred if the plaintiff was travelling within the posted speed limit.

The jury deliberated for just over an hour before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant driver.

As a result of his injuries, the minor plaintiff claimed his activities were significantly limited over the course of the summer. Further, the minor plaintiff had a keloid scar and complained of ongoing, intermittent pain as a direct result of the subject incident. Prior to trial, the plaintiff’s settlement demand was $275,000.

During the trial, Attorney Dealy maintained that the defendant rental agent had neither control over the property nor responsibility for maintenance or repair of the home or the surrounding property, such that his client did not owe any duty of care to the minor plaintiff. Further, Attorney Dealy argued that the alleged defect was hidden, and the defendant agent was not aware of it and had no opportunity to remedy or repair it. Finally, as to damages, Attorney Dealy argued that while the minor plaintiff’s injury was unfortunate, he was able to attend a day camp toward the end of the summer after being medically cleared and even played tackle football in the fall.

After a two-day trial, the jury returned with a defense verdict in favor of Attorney Dealy’s client, and despite finding that the co-defendant property owner acted negligently, the jury found that his negligence was not a legal cause of the minor plaintiff’s injuries.

The defendant driver testified that he had stopped at a red light and proceeded into the intersection after his traffic light had turned green and he had checked both directions and determined the intersection was clear. An independent third-party witness operating a vehicle alongside the defendant’s vehicle testified that he, too, viewed the intersection to be clear prior to proceeding forward. The eyewitness was able to stop in response to the approaching plaintiff bicyclist due to his vehicle’s automated braking system. Both defendant and the eyewitness testified that the plaintiff ran into the driver’s side of the defendant’s car thereby contradicting the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant struck him.

The plaintiff bicyclist was using a “Ride with GPS” application at the time of the collision. The defense retained an expert accident reconstructionist to incorporate the data gleaned from the GPS app to provide expert testimony as to the plaintiff’s speed, location and travel path leading up to the collision. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Preclude the defendant’s expert on the grounds that the GPS data was unreliable and constituted inadmissible hearsay. Attorney Girouard opposed the plaintiff’s Motion, arguing that GPS data has been deemed admissible in Massachusetts courts and that time and location data is highly accurate across horizontal planes and with a clear view of the sky such as the subject accident location. The court denied plaintiff’s Motion and the defendant’s expert reconstructionist was permitted to testify at trial.

Further, during the trial Attorney Girouard questioned the plaintiff about medical evidence suggesting that the plaintiff had a significant degenerative eye condition that adversely impacted his peripheral vision and he acknowledged that he took no steps to slow or stop to avoid colliding with the side of defendant’s vehicle prior to impact. After hearing all evidence and arguments, the jury returned with a defense verdict in favor of the defendant driver.

The decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant driver was negligent insofar as he failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, failed to take evasive action and failed to apply the brakes in time to avoid a collision.

Following the collision, the defendant volunteered to responding officers that he was driving home after having dinner at a restaurant with his wife and that he had one alcoholic beverage with dinner prior to the accident. The defendant underwent a field sobriety test at the scene which he passed. Further, the defendant agreed to have his vehicle impounded for evidence following the accident.

The decedent’s bloodwork taken at the hospital revealed he had a highly elevated blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident. At trial, both parties offered expert testimony from toxicologists to address issues of alcohol use and its impact on cognitive function and motor skills.

Both parties had accident reconstructionists testify at trial. The plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist testified that the defendant’s headlights would have illuminated the decedent at a distance which would have allowed the defendant to perceive the decedent in the road and apply his brakes in time to avoid the accident. The defendant’s accident reconstructionist testified that there was no evidence of speeding and that there was no physical evidence at the scene to allow the plaintiff’s expert to reliably conclude that the defendant should have been able to avoid the accident. The defendant testified that he was driving at approximately 30 mph when he observed the decedent in the middle of the roadway, on the double solid yellow line. He immediately applied his brakes but could not avoid colliding with the decedent.

Eyewitnesses who were occupants of a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction testified that they observed the decedent crossing the road in front of their vehicle and confirmed he was wearing dark clothing and looking down at the road.

The jury deliberated for ninety minutes before returning a defense verdict in favor of the defendant driver.

During the trial, the parties offered vastly different versions of the events surrounding the subject accident. The defendant testified that his ex-girlfriend had called him in distress, telling him that she was in trouble and that her new boyfriend, the plaintiff, was physically assaulting her at his home. The defendant testified that he immediately drove to the plaintiff’s home and when his ex-girlfriend saw his headlights outside the home, she hurriedly fled the house and got into the passenger side of the defendant’s vehicle to safety.

The defendant further testified that before he could drive away, the plaintiff came out of the home and began yelling and pounding on the defendant’s truck, denting the hood. According to the defendant, he did not argue with the plaintiff in an effort to deescalate the situation. Further, he testified that he tried to drive around the plaintiff slowly and the plaintiff would not budge, but that eventually he was able to drive around the plaintiff and leave the scene.

The plaintiff testified that the defendant arrived at his home. He and the defendant did not argue with each other; however, according to the plaintiff, the defendant drove aggressively as he was departing and rolled over and crushed the plaintiff’s right foot.

When questioned about whether he had assaulted his girlfriend that night, the plaintiff testified that he never struck her and never would. During cross-examination of the plaintiff, Attorney Dyer presented him with a certified copy of a criminal record related to charges of assault and battery against the witness, his former girlfriend. Although the plaintiff had denied striking her at any time, the criminal records reflected that the plaintiff had plead guilty to assaulting his girlfriend.

The plaintiff’s former girlfriend testified that she was in peril due to the plaintiff’s violence and that the defendant helped her by coming to rescue her. Further, she testified that the defendant never hit the plaintiff with his truck, nor did he run over the plaintiff’s foot at any time.

The jury deliberated for approximately 45 minutes before returning a defense verdict in favor of the defendant driver.