$1,039,000 RECOVERY - REAR END COLLISION BY COMMERCIAL TRUCK - LACERATION TO EYELID - RUPTURE TO GLOBE OF LEFT EYE - TOTAL LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE - REMOVAL OF EYE - PROSTHETIC EYE IMPLANTED.

Sarasota County
The male plaintiff was 40 years old at the time his vehicle was struck from behind by the defendant's commercial truck. The defendant was expected to assert the defense of comparative negligence and disputed the value of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff was exiting Interstate Route 75 on Fruitville Road in Sarasota at the time of the accident. He contended he was attempting to merge into traffic, but his car was stopped waiting for traffic to clear. The plaintiff claimed he was looking back to his left, when his car was struck from behind by the defendant's truck.

The plaintiff stated the rear end impact forced his head to strike the driver's side window. The plaintiff sustained a laceration to his left eyelid and rupture of the globe of his left eye stemming from the accident.

The plaintiff was rendered totally blind in his left eye. Approximately a year post accident, the left eye was removed and a glass eye was placed. The artificial eye does not track as a normal eye, according to the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff was a commercial property manager at the time of the accident. He returned to his employment shortly after the accident and missed minimal time from work. There was a $47,979 workers' compensation lien applicable, most of which was for medical expenses.

The case settled pre-suit for a total of $1,039,000.

REFERENCE

DiChiara vs. Defendant. Case no. n/a; Judge n/a, 7-03

COMMENTARY:

There were three tiers of available insurance under the defendant's commercial policy. The case involved an underlying carrier, a secondary carrier and an umbrella carrier. The plaintiff presented all three carriers with comprehensive demands, including a neuro-ophthalmologist's report detailing the loss of the plaintiff's left eye and the potential for future problems associated with the injury.

There was not much room for a liability defense in light of Florida's presumption of negligence in cases involving a rear end collision. Although the case was settled prior to institution of litigation, some assertion of comparative negligence was expected. Since the plaintiff was merging into traffic, the defense may have argued the plaintiff's car cut in front of the defendant's truck. The plaintiff would have attempted to negate such a defense by stressing that the police report clearly placed the impact in the merge lane. The property damage to the vehicle involved was not severe and the side window, where the plaintiff claimed to have struck his head was not broken.

The difficult part of the case from the plaintiff's perspective was that the plaintiff's damages, other than medical expenses were for pain and suffering with minimal economic losses. The plaintiff's challenge was to present the pain and suffering aspect of the case in a convincing manner. The plaintiff was a married man with two young daughters. He was healthy, other than the loss of vision in one eye.

Accordingly, plaintiff's counsel utilized a comprehensive diary of photographs to present the case as well as a "Day in the Life" video which included a demonstration of the process required to insert and removed the plaintiff's prosthetic eye. The photographs depicted the plaintiff's family life before the accident, during his recovery and his post-injury appearance and limitations.

In addition, for approximately a year after the accident, doctors attempted to surgically repair the damage to the globe of the plaintiff's left eye. The plaintiff remained hopeful that some of his vision would return, resulting in a year of intense medical treatment and anxiety. However, when there was no improvement after a year, physicians determined that the best course was to remove the eye altogether.