The bus driver attempted to blame our client claiming that he stopped suddenly in her path. We correctly argued that it is the obligation of every driver to have their vehicle under proper control for the conditions and that accordingly, the bus driver had a legal obligation to avoid rear-ending our client.
The defendant Transit Corp. also argued that there was “only” $1,800 of damage to our client’s vehicle so they contended that this small amount of damage to the vehicle could not have caused his severe back problems. This is a common defense argument and one that simply makes no sense– if a collision is severe enough to bend steel, who honestly believes that the people in that vehicle are not subjected to forces capable of ripping muscles, tendons, and ligaments? Our client’s doctors were ready to address this nonsense argument and explain to the jury exactly how the considerable forces of this rear-end collision caused the injuries to our client.
Just weeks before the scheduled trial, a mediation was held and a settlement of $2.5M was agreed upon by the respective parties.