Driver's Hasty Turn Caused Crash, Motorcyclist Claimed
On June 17, 2014, plaintiff Trevor Cogar, 21, a land surveyor, was motorcycling north on South Main Street, near its intersection at Constitution Avenue, in Spring Grove.
April 16, 2020 at 12:14 PM
4 minute read
Cogar v. Rife
$8,275 Verdict
Date of Verdict: Nov. 19, 2019.
Court and Case No.: C.P. York No. 2016-SU-001560-69.
Judge: Clyde Vedder.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Arm, leg and back injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Timothy L. Salvatore, KBG Injury Law.
Plaintiffs Experts: Amit R. Patel, orthopedic surgery, York; Michelle L. Moore, life care planning, McMurray.
Defense Counsel: Seth T. Black, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, Harrisburg.
Defense Expert: William W. DeMuth, orthopedic surgery, Camp Hill.
Comment:
On June 17, 2014, plaintiff Trevor Cogar, 21, a land surveyor, was motorcycling north on South Main Street, near its intersection at Constitution Avenue, in Spring Grove. While Cogar was proceeding through the intersection, he struck the right side of a car that was being driven by Cynthia Rife, who was executing a left turn onto the eastbound side of Constitution Avenue, from the opposite side of South Main Street. Cogar was propelled off of his motorcycle, and he suffered injuries of his back and his head.
Cogar sued Rife. The lawsuit alleged that Rife was negligent in the operation of her vehicle.
Cogar's counsel argued that Rife caused the accident by failing to yield to Cogar, who had the right of way.
Rife testified that she assured a clear, safe distance before she attempted to start her turn, and that as she turned, Cogar struck her vehicle. The defense argued that Cogar's failure to yield to Rife caused the collision.
Cogar was taken by ambulance to an emergency room. He underwent X-rays, which were negative, and he was treated for abrasions of his arms and legs. He was then released.
Cogar was ultimately diagnosed with a concussion, a mild traumatic brain injury, strains and sprains of his thoracic and lumbar regions, and an aggravation of pre-existing lumbar spondylolisthesis.
On June 23, 2014, six days after the accident, Cogar presented to an orthopedic surgeon. He had complaints of headaches and pain in his back. He was given pain medication and was referred for MRIs and to a pain management specialist. He continued to see an orthopedist in the following months, and on Aug. 4, 2014, he began a course of physical therapy, which he underwent for more than two weeks, through Aug. 20. His treatment consisted of massages and exercises.
Cogar received no further treatment until July 2015, when he returned to his orthopedist with complaints of lower back pain. He was prescribed pain medication and given stretching and strengthening exercises to perform at home. On Sept. 9, 2015, Cogar presented to a chiropractor, with whom he treated through Oct. 12, 2015. His treatment consisted of massages. Cogar received no further treatment.
Cogar's orthopedic surgeon recommended that Cogar receive future treatment, including examinations, pain injections, imaging studies and a lumbar fusion.
Cogar claimed that he suffers ongoing back pain. He testified that he is not as physically active, and as a result he has gained weight. He sought to recover $2,850 in stipulated past medical costs, $34,760 in future medical costs and $2,925 in stipulated past lost earnings, plus damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense's expert in orthopedic surgery, who examined Cogar, conceded that Cogar suffered a concussion and strains and sprains from the accident, but disputed that any aggravation of a pre-existing condition occurred. The expert concluded that Cogar does not require any future treatment.
The jury found that Rife was liable for the accident. It determined that Cogar's damages totaled $8,275.
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the reporter's phone calls.
—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 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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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