$27 Million Motorcycle Injury Verdict!

JUSTICE SERVED AGAINST A DISTRACTED DRIVER ON HER CELL PHONE

$27,500,000 Record Jury Verdict for Our Motorcycle Client

On Friday, May 3, 2024, a Kent County jury rendered a record jury verdict against a careless driver who was distracted by using her cell phone.  The defendant driver was “on-the-job” when the crash occurred.  Because of this, we proved she, her employer and their insurance companies were responsible for all the damage she caused. 

BIGGEST MOTORCYCLE VERDICT IN MICHIGAN

Our investigation and research into past motorcycle verdicts leads us to conclude that this verdict is the biggest motor vehicle negligence case for an injured motorcyclist ever in Michigan.  

CELL PHONE APP DISTRACTS CAR DRIVER & HITS MOTORCYCLIST

The car driver told law enforcement officers that she was checking her blood glucose level on an app on her cell phone. She drove left of center striking the motorcyclists; plaintiff was 29-years-old at the time and working as a shipping clerk in a local warehouse. His job required a great deal of walking.  The car driver initially said she thought there was a pothole that she had to dodge. There were no potholes.

MOTORCYCLIST ENTITLED TO NO-FAULT BENEFITS

The motorcyclist was insured and a “motor vehicle” was involved in the wreck, so our client was entitled to no-fault benefits.  Car drivers now pick the amount of PIP Medical coverage they will have.  Motorcycles often are shafted under the current no-fault law because bikers get their no-fault benefits from the car that hit them and are subject to the amount the car driver chose for themselves.  The only fortunate thing about this motorcycle injury case was the car had Full PIP Medical so all of our client’s medical bills will be paid for life.

The fact that the verdict did not include medical bills and was only for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement) makes the verdict even more impressive.  There is no formula for a jury to follow to come up with the award for compensation for pain and suffering.  For 30 years, I’ve developed and refined methods to help jurors arrive at big numbers.

DIFFICULT ISSUES OF THE CASE

No easy case: We filed the lawsuit and the defense alleged in their Answer that the motorcycle operator was comparative negligent.  Further, they tried to capitalize on the fact that the plaintiff did not have a full motorcycle endorsement.  In the end, we filed motions to exclude the lack of a motorcycle endorsement from trial since the motorcycle arguably did nothing to cause the crash. Ultimately, the judge agreed with us and it was not allowed to be discussed during the jury trial.

The defense, in our opinion, tried what we call “the bad guy” defense and tried to use motorcycle bias against us.  They tried to use plaintiff’s size, calling him “obese” and that he was a smoker against him.  They even seemed to suggest he may have been abusing pain medication.  All of this appeared to backfire, given the unprecedented result.

SYMPATHY FOR NONPROFIT DEFENDANT?

The employer of the car driver was a Catholic charitable nonprofit corporation.  This is most significant because they had tens of millions of dollars in bodily injury insurance coverage.  So often when a motorcyclist is injured, the offending party does not have enough insurance to come close to compensating the biker fully for all they have suffered. 

We were concerned that some jurors would be hesitant to award a significant verdict against a religious organization or a nonprofit.  We tested this by using a special jury consultant to poll over 400 people similar to the potential jurors.  The polling obtained actual data for the answers to these potential biases and other difficult issues of the case.  For example, our polling also tested for motorcycle bias, how much we should ask the jury for, the loss of consortium claim (see below) as well as other issues.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: Compensation for the uninjured spouse

Loss of consortium is a legal claim for the uninjured spouse of a severely injured plaintiff.  Some people feel marriage is “for better or for worse” and would be opposed to compensating the wife in this case.  In jury selection we asked the potential jurors if they could even comprehend or feel that it was “a real thing” that the spouse of a severely injured auto accident victim would also go through a loss or also suffer themselves.

The injuries were extensive with an above the knee amputation of the left leg, a one knuckle pinky finger amputation, fractured elbow with ORIF (surgery with plates and screws), metatarsal fracture with ORIF and PTSD.

OUR TRIAL TEAM

The trial team was led by Jason Waechter- THE Motorcycle Lawyer.  A loss of consortium claim was included and strategically represented by a separate attorney from our office, Sean Murphy.  One month before trial, the burdensome task of having to redact over 6,000 pages of medical records was met by bringing in Waechter’s old friend and virtually retired medical malpractice lawyer David Winter.  This led to Winter joining the trial team and conducting the direct examination of a few key medical witnesses.

The trial technology and the direct examination of a family witness was handled by ‘young lawyer’ and new associate of the firm, Aaron Martinez. 

THE VERDICT

The original Complaint included future wage loss.  It was withdrawn when it was only calculated to be $300,000.  The motorcyclist’s verdict is solely for noneconomic damages: $5,000,000 to date and $450,000 per year for life. The loss of consortium claim’s verdict was $2,000,000 to the present with no amount for future damages.