Bicyclist Awarded Damages for Injuries And Court after Insurance Company Denies the Claim
Several days ago I tried a case in the district court of Maryland
for Montgomery County. In this case my client was a young woman
bicyclist heading home from work going N. On Connecticut Ave. in
Washington DC. It was 6 PM in December and she had her blinking rear
light on. She needed to make a left turn Fessenden street and as she was
approaching Fessenden Street she worked her way over to traffic signal
in all the way. As she was just making a left turn on Fessenden Street a
van came by on her left and its right mirror struck her in the left hip
knocking her off the bicycle into the intersection. A bystander did not
see the accident but did see the van pass through the intersection and
stop 40 feet north of the intersection. He saw the bicyclist in the left
lane on the ground. Significantly, the pedestrian said that the traffic
light for the North and southbound directions was green.
The insurance company denied liability despite the fact that my client and the witness were very credible.
We
filed suit and when the case was called for trial by client and the
witness testified consistent with above. The van driver testified that
he was completely stopped at the light and that the bicyclist was also
stopped to his right. When the light turned green he proceeded 1 foot
forward approximately and the bicyclist somehow struck his van pushing
the mirror out of shape. Incredibly, he testified further that he no
longer saw the bicyclist and continued up the street, into ongoing
traffic and stopped the car to investigate.
The
judge credited the testimony of the plaintiff bicyclist and her witness
and concluded that the van driver was mistaken about his testimony. The
judge awarded the full amount requested for the injuries that the
bicyclist suffered.
Recently a young woman who was a victim of a bicycle accident came to
me. She was riding her bicycle southbound on 18th St between parked
cars and traffic. It was rush hour and the traffic was moving forward
slowly, stopping and starting. Ahead of her coming the opposite
direction was the defendant car driver. He made a left and cut into her
lane and struck her with the front of his vehicle in her left knee. At
the time of the accident it was daytime and she was traveling probably
10 mph in a 25 mph zone. She was knocked to the ground and suffered a
knee injury and significant bruising.
The driver of the car did
not speak to her and seemed preoccupied with the damage to his sport
utility vehicle. People around the scene helped the fallen bicyclist. I
only had one witness who actually saw the accident and she was not
cooperative with my investigation. An ambulance came and she was taken
to the hospital. She suffered a non-fracture injury to her left knee
and was put on crutches and released. She recovered and after
approximately 1 1/2 years after the accident she is still having some
knee problems.
She hired a lawyer for settlement purposes and the
insurance company denied liability. The claimed that their driver was
not at fault for the accident and further, that she was at fault for
riding between parked cars and moving traffic.
After her first
lawyer could not resolve the case, she came to me. I did not bother
calling the insurance company. I did not ask them to reconsider their
position. I merely filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.
Filing suit was the easy part. The defendant driver
was a lawyer who actually had a high-ranking government position. My
process server tried to serve him at home. The defendant lawyer lived
in an expensive house and had servants. The servants would claim that
the defendant was not home and service failed. I tried to have him
served as his government office and his secretary would not accept
service or let my process server see him. Finally I was able to serve
him by certified mail through his mail room.
Of course the
insurance company again denied liability. I went to the accident scene
and took measurements and photographs. It was clear to me that the
defendant was negligent in his driving. They took the deposition of my
client. Prior to the deposition I spoke at length with my client and
had her also go to the accident scene so the facts would be clear in her
mind and she could speak with confidence. I talked with there as to
what questions she could anticipate from the insurance company lawyer.
At her deposition she was very credible and sympathetic.
I took
the deposition of the defendant lawyer and he could not understand how
this accident could possibly be his fault. He stated that he was angry
at the bicyclist because she could've killed herself. He believed that
the fact that she was silent after the accident was an indication that
she was planning to sue him. Most importantly, he testified that when
he looked to the right he only looked approximately 15 feet because
after that his line of vision was cut off. He began moving his car and
ran over the bicyclist. I was able to preserve the argument that he
should not have moved at all because he could not look far enough up the
road. His testimony looked fairly poor for him.
Through the
assistance of the Washington area bicycle Association I was able to find
a regulation which permits "lane splitting". There is a regulation
which allows bicyclists to go between parked cars and traffic as long as
it is done safely.
I provided this information to the insurance
company lawyer and they finally accepted liability and made a very low
offer. After a period of negotiation we were able to get the offer into
a reasonable area. Even the court appointed mediator believed that the
plaintiff secured a good settlement.
It took many hours of work
which included visiting the accident scene, chasing down witnesses and
getting their statements, preparing my client for her deposition,
preparing for the deposition of the defendant, researching applicable
law but the result was worth it: we turned the case around from zero to
significant money for my client for the injury she suffered.
A young man charged with armed robbery, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery was acquitted after the alleged victim's testimony was discredited. The victim in this case told police that he and his friend were beaten by at least six young men two of whom had a stick and a baseball bat. The young men were arrested based on these accusations and jailed, some of them from the incident date all the way until trial.
At trial the victim identified my client as his attacker. During the trial it was revealed that the victim had had six regular sized beers in a one half hour interval shortly before the attack. It was further revealed that the victim almost immediately got on the ground and covered his face to protect himself. It was further revealed that it was very dark out and the victim had little time to look at his attackers. At the time of the attack the victim could not give any specific description of any of the men other than they were young and their race. He could not describe hairstyle, facial features, the size of the men. Finally, the witness testified that my client had a tattoo on his neck.
Prior to trial an investigator was sent to speak with the victim and she took his statement and his statement included the fact that my client had a tattoo on his neck.
At trial it was abundantly obvious that my client did not have a tattoo on his neck and frankly never had a tattoo on his neck. The jury took only a short while to quit my client of all charges.