$4,000,000 COMBINED RECOVERY AGAINST RENTAL CAR COMPANY - HEAD-ON-COLLISION - MULTIPLE FRACTURES - THIRD-DEGREE BURNS - MULTIPLE SURGERIES PERFORMED - CLOSED HEAD INJURY TO PLAINTIFF PASSENGER - HEARING LOSS - FEMUR FRACTURE - SHORT-TERM MEMORY IMPAIRMENT.

Palm Beach County
This action arose from a 1996 head-on collision between a pickup truck occupied by the father and son plaintiffs and a rented vehicle. The defendants included the driver of the rented vehicle as well as the rental car company which owned the vehicle, under Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine. The defendant driver died as a result of injuries he sustained in the accident and his insurance carrier tendered a $10,000 liability policy limit to settle the case. The case proceeded against the defendant rental car company. The defendant rental car company asserted that the plaintiff father, the driver of the vehicle, was comparatively negligent in causing the accent and that the defendant son failed to use his seat belt. The defense also contended that the fire which contributed to the plaintiff's injuries resulted from a defect in the plaintiff's pickup truck. In addition, the defense disputed the extent of damages which the plaintiff's sustained as a result of the collision.

The plaintiff son, 27 at the time, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his father in Lake County. The plaintiffs lived near Macon, Georgia, and were driving to Fort Lauderdale to assist a relative who was moving back to the State of Georgia. Evidence show that the defendant driver crossed the center median and struck the plaintiff's pickup head on. The accident occurred during a heavy rain. One eyewitness testified that the defendant driver passed another vehicle, fishtailed and lost control of the rented vehicle on the wet road surface before crossing the median and striking the front of the plaintiff's truck. The plaintiff's pickup truck rolled over and caught fire after the impact. Both plaintiffs were pulled from the blaze by motorists who stopped at the scene.

The plaintiff father, currently age 53, sustained multiple orthopedic injuries in the accident. His physicians reported that his injuries included open fractures of the tibia and fibula of both legs, an open femur fracture, fracture of five lumbar vertebra and a rib fracture. The plaintiff father also suffered third-degree burns to his left arm and left leg stemming from the vehicle fire.

The plaintiff father underwent surgery to insert orthopedic rods in both lower legs and a rod in the upper leg to treat the femur fracture. In addition, orthopedic hardware was placed in his shoulder for his humeral head fracture. Skin grafting from the buttocks to the burn areas was also performed.

The plaintiff father was employed as an airplane mechanic for the federal government prior to the accident. He returned to that employment in a sheltered work environment, but contended that he was unable to perform his job duties and was therefore resigned. The plaintiff's consulting psychiatrist opined that the plaintiff father was unable to work in any capacity as a result of his accident-related injuries. The plaintiff's economist estimated the future value of this plaintiff's lost earnings and benefits as $970,000.

The plaintiff son contended that he was wearing his seat belt at the time of the collision. The son's injuries included a closed head injury with a slight left ear hearing loss. A comminuted and displaced fracture to the femur and a basilar skull fracture. The plaintiff son was in a coma for several days after the accident.

His doctors reported that this plaintiff sustained a brain injury which has left him with permanent short-term memory deficits. The plaintiff's neuropsychologist opined that both plaintiffs suffered from depression associated with their accident-related injuries.

The plaintiff son worked as computer programmer. He returned to the position approximately four months post accident. The plaintiff testified that he learned coping skills, such as making notes, to help with his memory problems. The plaintiff son claimed approximately $14,000 in past loss of wages.

The defendant argued that medical records reflected that the plaintiff son was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. The defense also contended that the plaintiff father had just passed a car, was attempting to get back into the right lane and was traveling at an excessive speed for the conditions present. In addition, the defense argued that the subsequent vehicle fire was caused by a defect in the plaintiff's pickup truck.

The case was settled prior to trail for a combined total of $4,000,000, comprised of $3,100,000 for the plaintiff father, William, and $900,000 for the plaintiff son, Christopher.

REFERENCE
Plaintiff's economist: John E. Brown from Alpharetta, Ga.

Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon: Emory Johnson, Jr., from Macon, Ga. Plaintiff's psychiatrist: Stephen Bifulco from Palm Harbor.

Viles vs. Defendant. Case no. CL-00-7254 AG: Judge n/a, 12-12-01

Attorney for plaintiff: Michael L. Walker of Florin Roebig & Walker in Palm Harbor.

COMMENTARY;
Many of the plaintiffs' injuries were of a nature which did not lend themselves to dispute. The plaintiff son made a remarkable recovery and returned to his former position as a computer programmer. The defendant's neuropsychologist confirmed that the son suffered some residual effects of a closed head injury. However, the defendant asserted a seat belt defense which can be extremely significant in a case involving head injury. Although the plaintiff son claimed he was wearing his seat belt, there were some medical records which supported the defense position in that regard. In addition, the defendant was expected to dispute the plaintiff father's claim of a permanent, total disability. From outward appearances the plaintiff father seemed to have made a good recovery from his multiple orthopedic injuries. He returned to work and appeared to have voluntarily resigned. In addition, the manufacturer of the plaintiff's pickup truck may possibly have been listed as a Fabre defendant in light of defense claims that the post-impact fire was caused by a defect in the truck. The plaintiff had retained an accident reconstruction expert who opined that in a collision of that severity, there is no way to prevent fire.

The case settled with the assistance of Mediations, Inc. in West Palm Beach, prior to scheduling a trial date. There was $20,000,000 in available insurance coverage. It is also interesting to note that the accident occurred in 1996. Had it occurred after the passage of the rental car immunity law in 1999 damages would have been capped at $300,000 for each plaintiff.