Plaintiff Could Have Avoided Car Accident, Defense Contended
On Dec. 9, 2016, plaintiff Mark Clark, a man in his 50s, was driving on the Rankin Bridge, in Rankin. His car rear-ended a car that was being driven by Joseph Fink, who was attempting to merge onto the bridge from River Road.
August 15, 2019 at 12:38 PM
4 minute read
Clark v. Fink
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: March 11.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-17-015782.
Judge: Patrick Connelly.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Back, neck, shoulder, wrist injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Garth A. Gartin, Simon & Simon.
Plaintiffs Expert: Lance O. Yarus, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia.
Defense Counsel: Robert A. Loch, Robb Leonard Mulvihill, Pittsburgh.
Defense Expert: Steven E. Kann, orthopedic surgery, Pittsburgh.
Comment:
On Dec. 9, 2016, plaintiff Mark Clark, a man in his 50s, was driving on the Rankin Bridge, in Rankin. His car rear-ended a car that was being driven by Joseph Fink, who was attempting to merge onto the bridge from River Road. Clark claimed that he suffered injuries of his back, his neck, a shoulder and a wrist.
Clark sued Fink. Clark alleged that Fink was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Clark testified that Fink attempted to merge onto the bridge when it was unsafe to do so, since he failed to ensure a safe, clear distance.
Fink testified that he had merged onto the bridge properly when Clark’s car rear-ended his car. The defense maintained that Clark should have seen Fink’s vehicle and should have avoided striking it.
After two days had passed, Clark presented to an emergency room with complaints of pain in his left shoulder, left wrist and ribs. X-rays of those areas were negative, and he was given medication and discharged.
Clark was ultimately diagnosed with a tear of the left shoulder’s glenoid labrum, a left-wrist sprain, strains and sprains of his cervical and lumbar regions, and radicular left-arm pain. On Dec. 24, 2016, Clark, with continuing pain in his left wrist, presented to his primary care physician, who diagnosed him with a wrist sprain. On Jan. 6, 2017, Clark presented to a chiropractor, complaining of pain in his neck, back and left shoulder. He was put on a course of chiropractic treatment, which consisted of massages and spinal manipulation, until Nov. 7, 2017. In February 2017, Clark underwent an MRI of his left shoulder that allegedly showed a tear of the superior glenoid labrum. He was further diagnosed with strains and sprains of his neck and lower back, all of which later resolved.
On Aug. 24, 2017, Clark presented to an orthopedic surgeon with complaints of pain in his neck, radiating to his left shoulder and arm. He received a cortisone injection in his left shoulder and another one in February 2018. No further treatment was rendered. Clark’s expert in orthopedic surgery causally related Clark’s injuries and treatment to the accident and opined that Clark suffered a serious impairment of a bodily function in his left shoulder. The expert recommended that Clark undergo future treatment, including physical therapy, injections and possible surgery.
Clark testified that he continues to experience pain, stiffness and a limited range of motion in his left shoulder. This allegedly causes difficulty performing certain activities of daily living and household duties. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense’s expert in orthopedic surgery, who examined Clark, testified that Clark suffers from advanced pre-existing arthritis in his left shoulder with tendonitis. The expert stated that the accident did not cause, contribute to or aggravate Clark’s pre-existing condition. The expert concluded that Clark’s only injury as a result of the accident was a contusion to his left wrist, which resolved shortly thereafter.
The defense cited Clark’s medical records, which detailed how he complained of left-shoulder pain from an incident that occurred Oct. 25, 2016, in which he struck his shoulder against a wall. Clark was referred to physical therapy for the complaint, but he did not undergo treatment, the defense noted.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Fink was not liable for the accident.
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—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
© 2025 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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal 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 readTrending Stories
- 1The 'Substantial Certainty' of Employer Liability Policies
- 2Morgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
- 3Litigating the Written Word: Parol Evidence Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine in Fraud Claims
- 4Why Wait? Arbitrate! The Value of Consenting to Arbitrate Your SUM Cases at NAM
- 5The Legal Status of Presidential Diaries Must Be Clarified
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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