Posted On: March 20, 2012 by Moseley Collins

Traumatic Brain Injury Occurs When Sacramento Car Hits Boy on Bicycle, Part 2 of 2

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The cyclist sought compensation for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost income, and loss of future earning capacity. The plaintiff also requested damages for Cliff's loss of services and support, as well as loss of love and companionship, thus, affecting his relationship with his child.

The defendants asserted that Cliff was negligent and failed to mitigate his damages.
The city contended that Cliff was nearly in the middle of the roadway and was not using the available shoulder at impact. It also argued that the city had no obligation to retain bicycle-friendly shoulders since there was no law mandating it, and that the plaintiff's claimed injuries were caused by a third person for whom the city was not responsible. It also contested the plaintiff's claim of damages relating to Cliff's relationship with his child and his ability to work, as a prior accident had also caused a brain injury, which prevented him from working.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

According to Devlin, the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way and was contributorily negligent when Cliff inattentively turned in front of him. Devlin also asserted that the plaintiff had pre-existing disabilities related to the prior accident that affected the nature and extent of his alleged injuries.

A jury returned a verdict Dec. 9, 2010, finding the city not negligent. According to the jury, both Devlin and Cliff were negligent and their negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The jury determined the negligence of the parties to be 65 percent by Devlin and 35 percent by the plaintiff. Jurors awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for past economic damages, $2,750,000 for future economic damages, and $2,400,000 for past and future noneconomic damages.

Verdict: Plaintiff, $5,650,000 from Defendant Devlin

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.