In a number of these accidents, county officials end up settling the resulting injury lawsuits, including most recently one for $75,000 after a woman was injured due to a bus accident on I-95 in 2013 that resulted in a four-car pileup.

Although bus accidents are relatively rare compared to car accidents, they are still an issue and victims need to know what recourse they have to recover damages for medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. Ascertaining damages, too, can be a challenging and quite technical endeavor.

Our Miami bus accident attorneys are prepared to help.

In keeping abreast of the most up-to-date in bus accident law, we came across the recent case of Moreno v. City of Gering, a case heard recently by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Plaintiff was a passenger in a handibus owned and operated by the county when the handibus was struck by a van operated by a city volunteer firefighter. Plaintiff was ejected from the bus and landed on the pavement. She suffered personal injuries as a result.

Unlike in many bus accident cases, defendants – both the city and the county – admitted liability. That meant the only matter in dispute was damages, meaning how much were plaintiff’s injuries worth. This was to be determined at a bench trial.

A major point of contention was the cervical fusion surgery performed on plaintiff by a doctor who reportedly came under fire in published reports for performing an unusually high number of these surgeries when they were unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Doctor was being sued for medical malpractice by a number of plaintiffs. Defendants sought records that documented those surgeries and plaintiff didn’t object.

Ultimately, the court ruled this information wasn’t necessary because it related to non-party patients that were only going to be used as character witnesses against the doctor and his reported propensity to perform unnecessary surgeries. The probative value of the evidence in this case, the court ruled, was minimal.

The doctor would later testify that the accident had aggravated a pre-existing condition for the plaintiff that required the surgery.

Defense presented expert witness testimony to counter the doctor’s assertion that the surgery was necessary. However, at one point, one of those witnesses described the surgeon’s treatment of plaintiff as “worse than malpractice,” that the surgeon was a “criminal,” the surgery was “unnecessary” and also an “assault.”

Despite these statements, jurors awarded plaintiff $575,000. They determined the accident aggravated plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and the surgery was necessary.

Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court erred in overruling their motion to compel discovery regarding the surgeon, finding the surgery was necessary and awarding damages based on the surgery and related medical care.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The trial court has discretion in deciding motions pertaining to discovery, and the higher courts will only review for an abuse of that discretion. It was concluded based on the record that the lower court clearly understood the records defendants sought to obtain, knew the purpose they wished to use them for and chose not to. There was no indication that the trial would have reached a different conclusion had the court decided otherwise.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Moreno v. City of Gering, April 15, 2016, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

2015 brought biggest increase in car accident deaths in 50 years, March 10, 2016, Miami Bus Accident Attorney Blog

That is, that the negligent actions of defendants caused plaintiff’s injuries  and therefore plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Depending on the case, one element may be more tough to prove than the other, but it’s important not to neglect any of them.

In the recent case of Lowman v. State Farm, plaintiff was able to establish that her insurance company was liable in her uninsured motorist (UM) coverage case. However, when it came to the issue of damages, jurors awarded her $0. When she appealed the case to the Nebraska Supreme Court, she asserted it was contradictory for jurors to find in her favor on liability, and then award her no damages. The state supreme court disagreed, citing past case law precedence. 

According to court records, plaintiff was injured in a car accident with a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver. More than two years after the crash, plaintiff and her husband filed a complaint against their own auto insurance company, seeking collection of underinsured motorist coverage.

Before trial, insurer admitted that the underinsured driver was negligent. Still, the case went before a juror on the issues of causation and damages. Just before trial, plaintiff withdrew her claim for loss of earning capacity. She also conceded that all of her medical bills had been paid by her health insurance company. Therefore, plaintiff’s attorneys only argued for damages with regard to pain and suffering.

At the close of trial, jurors were given a single verdict form that indicated whether they found in favor of plaintiff and if so, for how much. Jurors indicated they did find in favor of plaintiff, but awarded $0 in damages.

Plaintiffs requested a new trial, but that request was denied, so they appealed. They argued the court erred in giving jurors a verdict form that allowed jurors to find in favor of them, yet award no monetary damages. The state supreme court disagreed.

The court first cited the 1954 case of Ambrozi v. Fry, in which jurors in a negligence lawsuit found in favor of plaintiff, but awarded no damages. Trial court ruled this was an invalid verdict and sent it back. Jurors returned with a damage award of $75. Plaintiff sought a new trial, which was granted. Defendant appealed. The state supreme court ruled it was clear the jurors intended to find in favor of the plaintiff, and yet award no damages. However, the court still affirmed the award of a new trial because the injuries suffered by plaintiff clearly exceeded $75, and thus the jury’s award was inadequate.

Since then, the court has affirmed a number of other cases in which jurors found in favor of plaintiff, and yet awarded $0 in damages.

Of course, this isn’t necessarily a common outcome. However, the issue of damages is not one that can be overlooked, and must be approached with as much meticulous analysis and research as the issues of negligence and causation.

Damages may be proved by presenting medical records, therapy reports, testimony from family members, expert witness conclusions, pay stubs and analysis by those who can predict your future would-be pay, given your career trajectory before the injury and more.

Our goal is to maximize our clients’ compensation in the best interest of justice and their future.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Lowman v. State Farm, Feb. 26, 2016, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

“Frivolous Injury Lawsuits” Problem a Myth, Feb. 27, 2016, Miami Car Accident Attorney Blog