Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and Campbell (D) had a car collision in July 2001. P and Walters (D) had a car collision three months later in October 2001. P sued both defendants, alleging in one action. P alleged that each Ds' negligence proximately caused her severe and permanent injuries. P alleged that Ds were jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. The trial court determined both defendants were negligent and held a jury trial solely on the question of damages. The evidence showed that P was treated for injuries to her eyes, shoulder, spine, and knee. The airbag in her car deployed in the first accident, causing burns to her eyes. P was treated and released. After the second accident, when her car's airbag again deployed, P went to the hospital after experiencing leg and back pain. She later had surgery on her shoulder, knee, lower back, and eyes. She said, 'with all sincerity, it was the second accident that really killed me.' P's treating ophthalmologist (Fournier) testified that after the first accident, P had significant trauma to both eyes, including alkali burns. P's injuries from the second accident were 'superimposed' on the 'delayed and defective' healing of injures from the first accident. P had chronic iritis, infections, and chemically induced dry eye. Minimal cataracts after the first accident progressed and required surgery after the second accident. Fournier said the accidents were 'cumulative' and it would be 'very difficult' to distinguish the role of each collision in P's injuries. Dr. Stamelos, treated P for general muscle pain and pain in her neck, lower back, shoulder, and knee. After the second accident, he found evidence of earlier injuries that were 'not very old.' Stamelos performed surgery on P's knee, shoulder and lumbar spine. P's spinal exams before the accidents were normal. After the accidents, she was 'symptomatic' and 'very disabled.' Walters' (D) expert, said he reviewed P's medical records from before and after the accidents and found no evidence of permanent injuries from the accidents. Dr. Perros, who performed cataract surgery on P's eyes after the accidents, said the cataract surgery was unrelated to the accidents and he saw no evidence of trauma to her eyes. P's counsel argued that the injuries were 'indivisible.' Walters' (D) counsel argued Ds were consecutive and not concurrent tortfeasors. The trial court tendered to the jury the verdict form proposed by P. The form required jurors to assign monetary amounts and percentages of responsibility to each defendant in 14 categories of past or future injuries. While the jury deliberated P entered into a settlement agreement with Campbell (D) for $150,000. The verdict came in at $518,000 and assigned 50% of the liability to each defendant. P claimed joint and several liability but the court refused. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co