Connecticut Jury Awards Worker $2.9M After Truck Crushes Foot

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries of those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A worker who had his foot run over by an 8,000-pound trailer attached to a pickup truck has been awarded just under $2.9 million by a New Britain jury.

When considering comparative negligence, the verdict comes to just over $2.1 million, which lawyers said is still a large damages figure in a jurisdiction not known for its lucrative verdicts.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in New Britain. On June 25, 2013, at around 10:45 a.m., Plaintiff and another man parked the dump trucks they were driving on a small cul-de-sac in a Farmington neighborhood. Soon, Defendant arrived, driving a Ford pickup truck towing a bobcat tractor on a trailer.

According to one of Plaintiff’s lawyers,  Defendant was Plaintiff’s supervisor and a co-owner in the business. Defendant parked close enough to Plaintiff’s truck that only a few feet separated them. Defendant was upset with the way Plaintiff parked the truck and pulled up close to “chastise him,” said Plaintiff’s lawyer.

As Defendant drove away, the trailer drove over Plaintiff’s right foot. Plaintiff’s lawyer said the trailer was about 20 inches wider than the truck.

“There just wasn’t any room for my guy,” said Plaintiff’s lawyer.

Plaintiff’s lawyer said Defendant told police he just thought Plaintiff had moved out of the way and lost sight of him. The other dump truck driver claimed Plaintiff stepped into the path of the truck and that the accident was his own fault.

An ambulance arrived and Plaintiff was taken to the hospital. Plaintiff’s lawyer said when Plaintiff was asked what his pain level was on a scale of 1 to 10, he responded “20.” Doctors did not perform surgery on the crush fracture of the foot and the bone healed, according to Plaintiff’s lawyer. However, the injury caused permanent nerve damage and pain. The condition is called regional pain syndrome.

Plaintiff, now 60, asked his doctors if amputation was an option months after the injury, said Plaintiff’s lawyer, because the pain was still so great at the time. Plaintiff’s lawyer said his client uses a Lidoderm patch every day and takes pain medication as part of his daily pain management program.

Plaintiff and his wife later sued Defendant for negligent operation of a motor vehicle under the exception to exclusivity under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The lawsuit also made a claim for loss of consortium for Plaintiff’s wife. Typically injured workers are not allowed to sue colleagues in court but Plaintiff’s lawsuit met the parameters for the exception.

Plaintiff’s lawyer, who handled the case with Monique Foley, of the same firm, said the defense contested both liability and damages.

Plaintiff’s lawyer said the defense hired an investigator who filmed Plaintiff and presented an hour of “highlights” to the jury. Included in the footage was Plaintiff playing horseshoes for 25 minutes. Plaintiff’s lawyer said the video was partially obstructed by the investigator’s own car dashboard, which had it not been there would have shown Plaintiff bending his right leg and putting more weight on his left leg.

Plaintiff’s lawyer then showed a longer version of the same video to the jury. He began showing the video from exactly where the defense left off. Once finished playing horseshoes, Plaintiff began walking downstairs barefoot and had to slowly step one foot down at a time and hold on to the railing. Taking stairs is particularly painful to Plaintiff when not wearing his custom shoes with special inserts, said Plaintiff’s lawyer.

The defense also hired an engineer expert who claimed the trailer could not have run over Plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff’s lawyer called the testimony a “cockamamy theory.”

The plaintiffs presented a truck driving expert who discussed what a driver needs to see and be aware of. The expert theorized that although Defendant was a competent driver, he was an angry driver and because he was angry with Plaintiff, he lost focus and failed to pay attention when driving over his foot.

During the trial, Plaintiff’s lawyer cross-examined the other dump truck driver who testified that Plaintiff was at fault for his injuries by stepping into the path of Defendant’s truck. Plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to attack the witness’ credibility by pointing out that the witness still works with Defendant’s Nursery, is one of the longer tenured workers with the company, and is a convicted felon. As such, the worker is especially aware of how difficult it can be to get another job when you have a criminal record.

The trial lasted two weeks before Judge Peter Wiese in New Britain Superior Court. The jury ultimately awarded $2.89 million. Of that amount, roughly $2.5 million was for non-economic damages and $90,000 was for Plaintiff’s wife’s loss of consortium damages.

The jury found that Plaintiff was 27 percent at fault for what happened which reduced the jury’s verdict to $2.134 million. Plaintiff’s lawyer was pleased with the outcome, especially since the judges kept trying to get the two sides to settle.

“You know counselor this is New Britain, it’s hard to get a good verdict here,” judges kept telling Plaintiff’s lawyer during the pendency of the litigation, Plaintiff’s lawyer said. “I wanted to quiet that little expression we have to constantly hear from all the judges.”
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: CT Law Tribune