Car Accident Lawsuit Results In Defense Verdict
Plaintiffs don’t win every lawsuit they file. In some cases, the defendants win, and it’s worthwhile to ask why.
In May, a Florida state court jury returned a defense verdict in a case involving a three-car pileup. The lawsuit was recorded “gavel to gavel” by the Courtroom View Network.
The Palm Beach County jury returned its verdict just after hearing closing arguments. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit were Charles and Deborah Carey, along with Peter Lafroscia. They sued defendant Sanjeet Gupta, whom they alleged was responsible for the crash. According to their lawsuit, he collided with both of the plaintiff’s vehicles, causing the accident.
Together, the plaintiffs were seeking more than $14 million in damages. The defense, however, successfully argued that, despite his speeding, Gupta didn’t cause the collision. Instead, he was cut off by Lafroscia.
The Careys’ attorney explained to jurors that they both sustained serious injuries in the accident and had to undergo multiple spinal surgeries. Their attorney accused Gupta of speeding and failing to pay attention to the road ahead of him. He told jurors that Gupta first slammed into Lafroscia, sending him over the median before hitting the Careys’ car.
Meanwhile, the attorney representing Lafroscia asked jurors to place the blame squarely on Gupta for causing the accident. However, Gupta’s civil defense lawyer successfully argued that Lafroscia was primarily to blame for the accident. Gupta’s attorney admitted that he was traveling 55 in a 45 zone, but also, Lafroscia swerved directly in front of him, slamming the brakes, which would have caused the accident at any speed. In other words, Gupta’s speeding did not cause the accident. Lafroscia did when he cut off Gupta’s vehicle.
Understanding causation in personal injury lawsuits
Causation plays a crucial role in negligence claims. It is one of the elements that must be satisfied to win your negligence lawsuit. There are two types of causation: Actual causation and proximate causation.
Actual causation focuses on whether the defendant’s actions were a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. A “but-for” test is usually applied. In other words, the plaintiff wouldn’t have been injured but for the defendant’s negligence. If the injury would not have occurred without the defendant’s actions, cause-in-fact can be established.
Proximate causation considers whether the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence. Proximate causation weeds out remote or indirect consequences. The question then becomes: Would a reasonable person foresee the potential for injury as a result of a negligent act, or was it too far removed?
In the case mentioned above, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant’s speeding was the proximate cause of his injury. The defense successfully argued that the plaintiff was primarily responsible for the accident that led to his injuries.
Talk to a Jacksonville, FL, Car Accident Lawyer Today
Gillette Law represents the interests of Jacksonville residents who have sustained serious injury due to a car accident. Call our Jacksonville personal injury lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin investigating your case right away.
Source:
blog.cvn.com/florida-jury-rejects-14m-lawsuit-over-triple-car-crash-watch-full-trial-via-cvn
