A jury weighing a claim for damages for serious injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a truck accident found neither party was at-fault, and therefore awarded nothing to the injured party.
Upon appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found the jury’s decision was unduly influenced by a line of questioning that should never have been admitted for consideration. Because the plaintiff’s personal injury attorney properly preserved the issue for appeal, the verdict was reversed and the case of Valedez v. Watkins Motor Lines, et al. remanded for another trial.
New York City truck accident lawyers recognize that in these kinds of cases, the percentage of fault assigned to an injured party is a critical factor in the determination of damages awarded. Although zero percent fault on the plaintiff’s behalf is ideal, even those who are deemed to be partially at fault can collect damages under the pure comparative negligence legal theory recognized in New York and a dozen other states (including Missouri, where the Valedez case originated).
What that means is that a judge or jury will assign a percentage of fault to the plaintiff (if any), and then damages are reduced based on his or her degree of fault – up to 99 percent.
Of course, it doesn’t help if the jury decides the defendant held zero fault, which was what happened in Valedez.
The decision was reached, at least in part, based on testimony by a sergeant citing conclusions in the report of the responding officer, who was not available to testify. The court had already ruled, prior to trial, that the conclusions reached by the responding traffic officer were not admissible, as they amounted to hearsay because that officer was not available to testify as to the report’s accuracy or his logic in reaching those conclusions.
Here, the plaintiff was a delivery driver who was, at the time of the crash, towing a vehicle to an auction house. A co-worker was traveling not far behind. The two both later testified they hitched a tow light kit to the back of both trailers before leaving, and both said the kits were in working order.
Around 2 a.m., the pair approached a highway exit, where they planned to pull off. As the two began to exit, the plaintiff, driving in the rear, was struck from behind by a semi-truck driven by the defendant’s employee.
The semi-truck driver said he saw no tow lights or brake lights, and in fact, the vehicle he struck was stopped completely on the exit at the time of the crash.
The on-site officer indicated on his report that no tow lights were discovered, though the plaintiff maintains those bulbs were destroyed in the crash.
The plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injury, and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and his employer. The court granted a plaintiff request to exclude the accident report, though allowed that elements cited therein could be introduced for limited purposes.
During trial, the trucker testified the plaintiff’s vehicle was “absolutely stopped.” Seeking to refute this, the plaintiff’s lawyer called a police sergeant, and asked whether the report indicated any statement by the trucker immediately after the crash to the same effect. The sergeant testified no such statement was made, and the officer did not in any way indicate the plaintiff’s vehicle was improperly stopped on the highway.
Subsequently, the defense used this as a window to introduce other evidence from the report – namely, that the officer indicated plaintiff’s vehicle defects (non-existent tow lights) and improper lane change or use was a probable contributing cause of the crash.
Plaintiff’s counsel objected repeatedly, but those objections were overruled.
Following the jury’s finding of zero fault on either side, the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court did not consider whether inadmissibility of the report was proper, as neither side challenged that. However, based on that ruling, the court found the introduction of evidence from that report by the defense improperly swayed the jury.
The verdict was reversed, and the case remanded for retrial.
The Law Offices of Nicholas Rose, PLLC offers free consultations. Call 1-877-313-7673.
Additional Resources:
Valedez v. Watkins Motor Lines, et al., July 11, 2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
More Blog Entries:
Pouzanova v. Morton – Improper Admission of Evidence Damages Car Accident Victim’s Case, July 21, 2014, New York City Accident Lawyer Blog
