Trucking & Transportation Liability

In a fact pattern that is highly typical, this matter presented as a clear defense liability for failing to stop at a red light and significantly exaggerated injury claims by a plaintiff. The defense strategy in highlighting how the plaintiff was significantly “playing up” his alleged injuries ultimately resulted in a defense verdict, despite uncontested evidence that Roig caused the accident. 

The trial court ordered a new trial, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, citing not only the clear evidence as to liability, but noting how Roig herself said DiDinato was hurt and that DiDinato was transported to the emergency room, suffered pain at the scene of the accident and did not complain of prior neck pain. 

Setting aside the clear liability, it is certainly concerning that a jury’s subjective determination that a plaintiff was exaggerating injuries would result in that jury’s determination being thrown out by both a trial court and an appeals court because the plaintiff said he was hurt and sought emergency medical care, and a layperson said he was injured. This portrays itself as a highly troubling disturbance of the sound discretion of the jury. 

---

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}