Motorist's Lane Change Caused Crash, Defense Contended
On Nov. 13, 2015, plaintiff Jerry Vanderlee Jr., a laborer in his mid-30s, was driving on the eastbound side of Route 51, near its intersection at McKenery Drive, in Rostraver.
March 14, 2019 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
Vanderlee v. Daniels
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: Nov. 6, 2018.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Westmoreland No. 3788 of 2016.
Judge: Harry F. Smail Jr.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Back, knee and neck injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Eugene J. Julian, Julian Law Firm, Washington.
Plaintiffs Expert: Ari E. Pressman, orthopedic surgery, Pittsburgh.
Defense Counsel: Timothy J. Scelsi, Reeves & Ross, Latrobe.
Comment:
On Nov. 13, 2015, plaintiff Jerry Vanderlee Jr., a laborer in his mid-30s, was driving on the eastbound side of Route 51, near its intersection at McKenery Drive, in Rostraver. His vehicle's rear end was struck by a trailing pickup truck that was being driven by Lawrence Daniels Jr. Vanderlee claimed that he suffered injuries of his back, a knee and his neck.
Vanderlee sued Daniels. Vanderlee alleged that Daniels was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.
Vanderlee testified that after looking in both directions and seeing vehicles a fair distance to his right, he proceeded across two southbound lanes and a turning lane and then turned left into the northbound lane of Route 51. He was then rear-ended by Daniels, who was driving in the same direction.
Vanderlee's counsel argued that Daniels should have seen Vanderlee's car and that his car had traveled a sufficient distance along Route 51 before attempting the turn for Daniels to avoid him before striking him.
Vanderlee's counsel also cited the deposition of an eyewitness, another motorist, who had been driving on Route 51 and intended to turn left onto McKenery Drive. The witness claimed that Daniels had passed him in the right lane and had time to avoid Vanderlee's vehicle. The witness also claimed that Daniels was traveling too fast under the circumstances.
Vanderlee's counsel further argued that Daniels' failure to maintain an assured clear distance ahead while driving caused the collision.
According to Daniels, as he approached the intersection, Vanderlee pulled out directly in front of him when it was not safe to do so and when Daniels had the right of way.
Vanderlee was taken by ambulance to an emergency room where he was examined and released.
Vanderlee alleged that, in the ensuing weeks, he treated with over-the-counter pain medication for pain to his neck, low back and right knee, which he alleged had struck on the dashboard during impact.
On Feb. 6, 2016, Vanderlee presented to his primary care physician with complaints of pain to his neck, low back and right knee. He was sent for MRIs and was diagnosed with bulging at lumbar intervertebral discs L2-3 and L3-4, disc desiccation in the lumbar spine, and a tear of the right lateral meniscus. He was further diagnosed with a cervical strain and sprain.
From March to October, Vanderlee treated with physical therapy. The treatment consisted of massages and exercises.
In November, Vanderlee presented to an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed him with radiculopathy stemming from L3-4, after having experienced radicular pain in his legs. He treated with a series of epidural injections, which continued through 2017.
In February 2017, Vanderlee underwent an arthroscopy of the lateral meniscus tear.
Later in 2017, Vanderlee developed pain in his left leg, allegedly due to having favored it and placing more weight and pressure on it as a result of the right-knee injury. He underwent an MRI and was diagnosed with a tear of the left medial meniscus. At the time of trial, Vanderlee continued to consult with his surgeon about his left leg and was considering surgical intervention.
Vanderlee testified that he continues to suffer pain in his lower back and knees. He allegedly has difficulty walking and standing for long periods, climbing and bending. Vanderlee stated that his ongoing pain affects his ability to perform his duties as a laborer.
Vanderlee sought to recover approximately $5,000 in unpaid medical costs. He also sought to recover lost wages, having missed time off from work throughout his treatment, as well as damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense questioned whether Vanderlee suffered any injuries from the accident, since he waited nearly three months before seeking formal treatment.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Daniels was not liable for the accident.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs and defense counsel.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.
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 AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
- 2Judge Rises to Tifton Superior Court Bench
- 3'It's Like They Lynched You:' Law Professor's Discrimination Claim Reaches High Court
- 4New Teeth for Anti-SLAPP Statute? Absolute Immunity for Union Grievance Proceedings
- 5Freeman Mathis & Gary Taps Orlando for Third New Florida Office This Year
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