subject: Young Man Compensated Over $9.0 Million In Jury Award For Brain Injury Sustained In Motor Vehicle Ac [print this page] Parents usually think that their children will be safe when they go to school. They just cannot imagine that their son or daughter will be injured in a car accident while crossing the street right in front of their school. After all, dont towns and counties in which the school is based ensure that there are signals lowering how fast cars can travel in spots around schools and controlling intersections close to the school with stop signs and traffic lights? And arent drivers more careful in school zones? Do not be so sure.
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 2 months of strenuous rehabilitation therapy. The medical expenses came close to $700,000.
The irreversible results of the injury include cognitive disabilities in memory, speech, and executive function. They also include physical disabilities in coordination and in gait as well as balance disturbances. On his return to high school he could no longer keep up in regular classes and had to transfer to special education classes.
Given the nature and extent of his disabilities he needs life-care. The life-care plan includes anticipated future medical expenses up to $3.5 million. And with his disabilities he suffered a loss of earning capacity of nearly $2.2 million. This is a measure of the difference in the income he was expected to have had if he had not been hurt and the more limited income he will likely be able to earn due to the limitations of his accident related disabilities.
The law firm that represented the young man brought suit on behalf of the students parents, both individually and on their sons behalf, against the driver and against the county. The driver admitted her negligence yet claimed that the county and, yes, the plaintiff were also at fault. The city, in turn, denied any liability for the accident and claimed that the driver and victim were the only ones at fault.
In preparing the case the law firm retained an accident reconstruction expert, a physician concentrating 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 apparently found that the driver was 79% responsible the county was 20% responsible, and the student was 1% responsible for the accident. As per to the report by the law firm, they achieved a jury award of $9.14 million on behalf of the student and his parents.
The jury was clearly confident that there were things that not just the driver but also the county ought to have done which would have prevented this accident. Perhaps every county ought to consider this claim as an illustration of a foreseeable and avoidable catastrophe and do something to make the locale around their school safe for children. And perhaps in doing the right thing they can prevent another terrible accident that forever alters the future of one of its students. And they can also lower their risk of a large adverse jury award.
