Personal injury lawyers successfully worked to obtain $20 million for their client, who suffered catastrophic brain injuries as a result of a truck accident. Though they had argued for $25 million in the case, they overcame defense arguments that plaintiff’s costs for past and future care were greatly reduced by the fact that his family had pulled together to help with day-to-day necessities, as opposed to hiring a home health aid. Defendant truck driver and trucking company in Kahn v. Moore Freight Service Inc. also argued they shouldn’t have to pay as much because they had “accepted responsibility” for the crash.
While it was true the defense had conceded liability, the reality is they didn’t have much choice. The driver reportedly blew a red light, striking plaintiff and his wife, who was also in the vehicle at the time of the crash. The evidence of the driver’s negligence – and thus the trucking company’s vicarious liability – was pretty clear. To argue the defense somehow deserved to pay less in damages for admitting what was already clear is a bit misguided. As plaintiff’s lawyer put it, that would be like a driver striking a car, causing $1,000 in damages, admitting fault and then arguing he should only have to pay $50 because he admitted it. “Is that fair?” the injury attorney asked rhetorically.
Evidence during trial showed plaintiff suffered numerous injuries as a result of the trucking accident, including bleeding throughout his brain and also shearing of the nerves in the brain. This rendered him completely helpless. His neurosurgeon indicated that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being deceased, plaintiff’s brain injury was an 8. Continue reading