ILNews

Automobile-bicycle collision

October 13, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Donald E. Brier v. Irene Wegner

Marion Circuit Court No. 49C01-0704-CT-0013996

Injuries: Mild traumatic brain injury; partial rotator cuff tear of left shoulder

Date: May 17-21, 2010

Judge or Jury Trial: Jury trial

Judge: Hon. Louis F. Rosenberg

Disposition: Verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,395,545, which was reduced by an assignment of 30 percent comparative fault to the plaintiff; judgment entered by court for $976,881

Plaintiff Attorneys: Thomas C. Doehrman and Daniel Buba, Doehrman Chamberlain, Indianapolis

Defendant Attorney: Jeff Crabill, State Farm Litigation Counsel, Indianapolis

Insurance: Underlying coverage of $250,000 was with State Farm. Plaintiff had UIM coverage of $1.5 million with Nationwide.

Case Information: Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on 64th Street in the Broad Ripple neighborhood of Indianapolis on July 5, 2005, when the defendant backed her SUV directly into his path. Upon impact, the plaintiff busted out the rear window of the SUV. He was taken from the scene by ambulance and was diagnosed at the ER with a left shoulder injury and a concussion. He was released the same evening from the ER.
Thereafter, plaintiff treated continuously for the effects of a mild traumatic brain injury and has been unable to continue employment as an attorney. He also underwent a successful surgery for his rotator cuff tear.

The past medical expenses were $55,545, and future medical expenses were claimed to be $115,000. Plaintiff also claimed lost wages both past and future of $750,000.

The defendant’s accident reconstructionist testified that the plaintiff had ample time to avoid the defendant’s vehicle and that the collision occurred because he was not paying attention to the roadway ahead of him. This testimony was in direct conflict with the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the collision who testified that there was nothing the plaintiff could do to avoid colliding with the SUV.

The defendant’s expert damage witnesses claimed that plaintiff’s brain injury was very mild and completely healed within a few months of the collision. It was the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s ongoing problems were not related to any injury sustained in the collision. The defendant disputed the future medical expenses and future wages that the plaintiff was claiming.

The plaintiff’s expert witnesses included a neurologist, neuropsychologist, and neuroradiologist. The defendant’s experts included a neuropsychologist, neuroradiologist, and an accident reconstructionist.

After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,395,545. This amount was reduced by an assignment of 30 percent comparative fault to the plaintiff and judgment was entered by the court for $976,881.•
– Thomas C. Doehrman




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT