Philadelphia County Settlement at Mediation: $500,000,00:

This case could have provided for a really good law school exam question. Moreover, the quality of advocacy by the attorneys and claims representative was outstanding. It is such a pleasure to work with everyone in this case. Liability and damages were very much in issue as was Pennsylvania’s “Fair Share Act” and the applicability or non-applicability of the case of “Spencer v. Johnson.” The case arose from a three-vehicle motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff’s theory was that as he merged from the right travel lane to the left travel lane he was involved with a collision with an unidentified vehicle which fled the scene, thereby causing Plaintiff to cross into the opposing lane of travel and be involved in a subsequent collision with another vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, against whom Plaintiff filed suit for negligence. The operator of that vehicle never saw an unidentified vehicle and only saw Plaintiff’s vehicle suddenly appear in his lane of travel and there was nothing he could have done to avoid the collision; there was some evidence that driver may have been driving faster than was suitable for the conditions as it was raining at the time. Compounding the analysis, Plaintiff (who was claiming, in part, a traumatic brain injury) testified he had no memory of anything following the initial impact with the unidentified vehicle, including any observations of the other vehicle traveling in the opposite lane of travel. Thus, a major hurdle for Plaintiff to overcome was establishing negligence and causation against the driver of the vehicle traveling in the opposite direction and who claimed, in part, “Sudden Emergency.” There were “hearsay” issues involved as well as the very real prospect that Plaintiff could have been found entirely at fault for causing the accident in the first instance when he merged from the right lane to the left lane and collided with the unidentified vehicle (again, Plaintiff’s lack of memory arguably made it impossible for him to explain his actions in ascertaining it was safe to do so). Regarding damages, Plaintiff was claiming significant economic damages which Defendant disputed. Although Plaintiff clearly suffered some injury, Defendant had undertaken surveillance of the Plaintiff and had a multitude of evidence suggesting Plaintiff’s claims, particularly regarding the traumatic brain injury claim, were not as significant as claimed. Ultimately, with significant risk on all Parties, the gallant efforts of everyone resulted in a fabulous, amicable settlement. It was truly a very fascinating set of facts.