Father-and-Son Lawyers Get $23M Verdict for Boy Injured in School Bus Crash
Two Watertown-based attorneys have secured a $23 million jury verdict on behalf of a then-12-year-old-boy who suffered two skull fractures when the school bus he was a passenger in struck a tree.
December 02, 2019 at 01:29 PM
4 minute read
A Waterbury Superior Court jury has awarded $23,050,000 to a boy who suffered two skull fractures after the school bus he was a passenger in struck a tree in Wolcott in 2015.
The case hinged on whether the boy's aggressive behavior following the accident was due to his moderate to severe autism or the bus collision. The plaintiff's attorneys—father-and-son team Michael and Jeremy D'Amico—expressed outrage at what they claim was the defense's attempt to paint plaintiff Gabriel Goncalves as an autistic boy with little or no future before the crash.
"It almost seemed like I was moving back in time, and that we turned the clock back 50 or 75 years to where there were biases and prejudices in society about what children with autism looked like, and whether they should be put away some place," said Michael D'Amico, a member at D'Amico & Pettinicchi in Watertown. "It was wrong, so very wrong. It was sad that the defense looked at Gabriel that way before the crash."
The jury's Nov. 25 verdict, Michael D'Amico said, was a vindication.
"Gabriel wasn't viewed by the jury as a child with no future before the crash," he said. "The defense painted him as a child with autism with no future before the crash, but children with autism can be employed and can live independently and semi-independently."
Representing bus driver Mark Hudobenko and Worhunsky Corp., the bus company, was Darien solo practitioner G. Randall Avery, who declined Monday to comment on the case.
Representing defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Co. in the underinsured portion of the claim was attorney Michele Wojcik of Cheshire-based Nuzzo & Roberts. Wojcik did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
In court papers, the defense maintained the bus driver was neither negligent nor careless.
But the jury found the bus driver 74% responsible for the crash, and attributed the other 26% to the driver of a car involved in the incident.
D'Amico said he was also able to counter the defense's claim that Goncalves' behavioral decline was related to his preexisting autism and puberty. Following the crash, the boy would sometimes show aggressive and impulsive behavior, according to his Nov. 21 amended complaint.
D'Amico said he believes he was able to show through numerous medical experts that Goncalves' behavior was due to the effects of the accident. Those experts, D'Amico said, included a neuropsychologist, a pediatric neurologist and a pediatric and behavioral psychologist. All testified at trial that the crash was the key factor in the boy's behavioral changes.
In addition, D'Amico said, several fact witnesses testified to the changes after the crash, including Gabriel's parents, brother and behavioral aides who had worked with the boy before and after the crash.
According to D'Amico and the complaint, the bus driver claimed a green car was swerving in and out of lanes causing him to crash the school bus. The bus crashed into a tree on the right passenger side, just where Goncalves was sitting. There were five people on the bus, but the boy was the most severely injured, D'Amico said. The green car was never located, and while witnesses to the crash claimed they never saw a green car, one of the other students on the bus said he'd seen it.
According to an air-bag control module, Hudobenko, the bus driver, was traveling between 43 and 45 miles per hour at the time of the crash. The speed limit was 35 miles per hour. The police did not cite Hudobenko, D'Amico said.
The jury verdict could be appealed, but D'Amico said he saw no "appealable issues of any consequence on the defense side."
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
- 2Insurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
- 3Supply Chain Challenges and Opportunities Under the Second Trump Administration
- 4As Atlanta Partners Moved to Am Law 200 Firms at a Higher Rate in 2024, 2 New Arrivals Benefited
- 5A Tech-Enabled Approach to Professional Development Is the Path Forward for Young Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250