Plaintiff's Blood Alcohol Leads to New Trial in Case with $3 Million Verdict
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Richard Oftedal granted a new trial to a trucking company that had been on the losing end of a more than $3 million verdict.Oftedal concluded…
November 20, 2017 at 03:21 PM
9 minute read
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Richard Oftedal granted a new trial to a trucking company that had been on the losing end of a more than $3 million verdict.
Oftedal concluded the court improperly excluded evidence of the plaintiff's blood alcohol test and alcohol consumption before an early morning accident on a suburban road in West Palm Beach. He granted a motion for a new trial by defendants Pat Salmon & Sons of Florida—linked to Arkansas-based mail hauler, Salmon Cos.—and its driver, Patrick Chancey.
The defendants faced millions in damages after a 48-foot tractor-trailer injured plaintiff Marc Rene. The trucking company had made a $300,000 pretrial offer, but a Palm Beach County jury awarded Rene 10 times that amount, returning a verdict for more than $3 million.
But now, the defendants have a chance to present new evidence they hope will turn the litigation in their favor.
“The biggest issue was there was evidence the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the crash, based on hospital blood tests that were performed within an hour or two of the accident,” defense attorney David Kirsch, a partner at Cole Scott & Kissane's West Palm Beach office, said. “We weren't allowed to bring up alcohol at all at the first trial.”
Rene conceded he'd drank alcohol hours before the accident, but said he was sober when Chancey's truck crashed into his car.
Oftedal initially sided with Rene on the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude the results of a blood alcohol test performed at Wellington Regional Medical Center on the day of the accident. The test revealed Rene's blood alcohol level was .12 percent—higher than the legal limit of .08 percent. During a hearing, the judge considered evidence that emergency responders saw no signs of intoxication and therefore did not conduct a field sobriety test on Rene. He also heard evidence that hospital staff had used an alcohol wipe on the patient before conducting the blood test, leading Oftedal to conclude the evidence was unreliable and inadmissible.
But the judge reconsidered.
“The likely effects, if any, on Rene at the time of the accident due to his prior alcohol consumption are the subject of wildly varying opinions from the parties' chosen
toxicology experts,” he wrote in the order issued Nov. 16. “This is an issue for the jury's consideration.”
The jury had assigned 70 percent of the blame for the accident to Chancey and held Rene 30 percent responsible.
The litigation stemmed from an accident around 5 a.m. on Oct. 11, 2014, when Rene was about a mile from home, traveling north in a Honda Accord along Benoist Farms Road.
Chancey, meanwhile, was on his way to a nearby post office for a haul from the U.S. Postal Service and had just exited a truck yard on the west side of Benoist Farms Road. He was attempting to turn right into the southbound lanes but made too wide of a turn and entered the northbound lanes, facing the wrong direction.
Dash-cam video from Chancey's truck showed he was traveling the wrong way in the northbound lane, and attempting to correct course and return to the southbound lane when the accident occurred.
“Even though my client encroached on the oncoming lane and we admit some fault with that, the plaintiff still had enough time and distance to react to that … but he didn't,” Kirsch said. “Our defense is that the reason he didn't is because he was impaired by alcohol consumption, and we think the jury has a right to know that.”
Plaintiffs attorney Jeanmarie Whalen of Domnick Cunningham & Whalen is gearing to appeal the order for a new trial. She said Rene would have needed to consume 17 drinks to score the blood alcohol level indicated in the test—a level of intoxication that would have been clear to first responders.
“We believe the judge's initial ruling, excluding any evidence of alcohol, was correct,” Whalen said. “The test result was inherently unreliable because it was improperly administered, leading to the inaccurate result. … We remain committed to our client and will fight to preserve the jury's verdict.”
No date for the new trial had been set by press time .
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Richard Oftedal granted a new trial to a trucking company that had been on the losing end of a more than $3 million verdict.
Oftedal concluded the court improperly excluded evidence of the plaintiff's blood alcohol test and alcohol consumption before an early morning accident on a suburban road in West Palm Beach. He granted a motion for a new trial by defendants Pat Salmon & Sons of Florida—linked to Arkansas-based mail hauler, Salmon Cos.—and its driver, Patrick Chancey.
The defendants faced millions in damages after a 48-foot tractor-trailer injured plaintiff Marc Rene. The trucking company had made a $300,000 pretrial offer, but a Palm Beach County jury awarded Rene 10 times that amount, returning a verdict for more than $3 million.
But now, the defendants have a chance to present new evidence they hope will turn the litigation in their favor.
“The biggest issue was there was evidence the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the crash, based on hospital blood tests that were performed within an hour or two of the accident,” defense attorney David Kirsch, a partner at
Rene conceded he'd drank alcohol hours before the accident, but said he was sober when Chancey's truck crashed into his car.
Oftedal initially sided with Rene on the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude the results of a blood alcohol test performed at Wellington Regional Medical Center on the day of the accident. The test revealed Rene's blood alcohol level was .12 percent—higher than the legal limit of .08 percent. During a hearing, the judge considered evidence that emergency responders saw no signs of intoxication and therefore did not conduct a field sobriety test on Rene. He also heard evidence that hospital staff had used an alcohol wipe on the patient before conducting the blood test, leading Oftedal to conclude the evidence was unreliable and inadmissible.
But the judge reconsidered.
“The likely effects, if any, on Rene at the time of the accident due to his prior alcohol consumption are the subject of wildly varying opinions from the parties' chosen
toxicology experts,” he wrote in the order issued Nov. 16. “This is an issue for the jury's consideration.”
The jury had assigned 70 percent of the blame for the accident to Chancey and held Rene 30 percent responsible.
The litigation stemmed from an accident around 5 a.m. on Oct. 11, 2014, when Rene was about a mile from home, traveling north in a Honda Accord along Benoist Farms Road.
Chancey, meanwhile, was on his way to a nearby post office for a haul from the U.S. Postal Service and had just exited a truck yard on the west side of Benoist Farms Road. He was attempting to turn right into the southbound lanes but made too wide of a turn and entered the northbound lanes, facing the wrong direction.
Dash-cam video from Chancey's truck showed he was traveling the wrong way in the northbound lane, and attempting to correct course and return to the southbound lane when the accident occurred.
“Even though my client encroached on the oncoming lane and we admit some fault with that, the plaintiff still had enough time and distance to react to that … but he didn't,” Kirsch said. “Our defense is that the reason he didn't is because he was impaired by alcohol consumption, and we think the jury has a right to know that.”
Plaintiffs attorney Jeanmarie Whalen of Domnick Cunningham & Whalen is gearing to appeal the order for a new trial. She said Rene would have needed to consume 17 drinks to score the blood alcohol level indicated in the test—a level of intoxication that would have been clear to first responders.
“We believe the judge's initial ruling, excluding any evidence of alcohol, was correct,” Whalen said. “The test result was inherently unreliable because it was improperly administered, leading to the inaccurate result. … We remain committed to our client and will fight to preserve the jury's verdict.”
No date for the new trial had been set by press time .
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 AllFlorida Court's Reversal of Attorney Fees Triggered by Client's Death
4 minute readCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Appeals Court Affirms Everglades Foundation Scientist Conviction
Big Law Assembles as Cruise Lines Clinch Partial Victory in $439M Havana Docks Suit
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
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