This case concerned a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 2, 2000 on the North Central Scranton Expressway. On said date, Plaintiff was rear-ended by Co-Defendant after stopping behind one or more vehicles, which in turn had stopped due a mattress on the road. The mattress had fallen off of our client's Ford Bronco. Although the mattresses and box springs had been tied down with a rope, the rope unraveled shortly after our client entered the highway.
As a result of the accident, Plaintiff's vehicle sustained over $5,000 in damage to the rear and over $1,000 in damage to the front. The collision also twisted the driver's seat of Plaintiff's vehicle and jammed the doors of the vehicle, which needed to be pried open. Plaintiff claimed that he sustained a concussion and certain effects resulting there from, a protruding/herniated disc at C5-C6 and other neck and low back injuries.
Delay damages were approximately 30% and Plaintiff's initial demand was $130,000. However, the day before jury selection, Plaintiff settled with Co-Defendant's Estate on a joint tortfeasor basis for $5,000, electing to pursue our client as the sole cause of Plaintiff's injuries. (Co-Defendant had died during the course of the litigation for reasons unrelated to the accident.) As a result of the settlement, Co-Defendant's attorney did not participate at trial.
At trial, Plaintiff's expert opined that Plaintiff, age 52, had a 10% whole body permanent impairment and that surgery may be required in the future. Our expert opined that Plaintiff only sustained a low back strain, which resolved, and a moderate to severe strain of his trapezius muscle, which, if Plaintiff's medical history is believed, was caused by the subject accident. Our expert found muscle spasms 3 years after the accident in Plaintiff's trapezius muscle and pre-existing degenerative disease in Plaintiff's cervical spine.
The trial lasted two days, after which time, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client on April 13, 2007. The jury found that our client was not negligent. It did find that Co-Defendant was negligent, but found that Co-Defendant's conduct was not a factual cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.