On July 17, 2006, Our Client, a 24-year-old unemployed man,
was an occupant of a vehicle that was traveling on the
westbound side of the Northern State Parkway, near its
interchange at Brush Hollow Road, in Westbury. The vehicle
overturned after its driver had lost control. The vehicle
struck a tree and became engulfed in flames.
Our client sustained injuries of an arm, his back, his
bladder, his face, a finger, a foot, a knee, a leg, seven
ribs, his skull and his spleen.
Our client sued the vehicle's owner and a man who occupied
the vehicle at the time of the accident "the confessor". Our
client alleged that "the confessor" was driving when the
accident occurred, that "the confessor" was negligent in his
operation of the vehicle and that the vehicles owner was
vicariously liable for "the confessor's actions.
"the confessor" died after the suit had been filed. We did
not pursue a claim against "the confessor's estate. The
matter proceeded to a trial against the vehicle owner.
Our client claimed that, while rounding a curved portion of
the parkway, "the confessor" swerved to avoid traffic and
lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that "the confessor"
Defense counsel contended that their client, a fair-skinned
white man, was driving and that "the confessor", an Hispanic
man, was a passenger of the vehicle. He presented police
officers who responded to the accident. One officer claimed
that he arrived to find a white man sprawled across the
cabin of the car, with his head nearest the d river's side,
and another man, ostensibly "the confessor", seated on the
The other officer reported seeing our
client in a position somewhat similar to that described by
the first officer. He claimed that, based on our client
position and information received from witnesses, he
concluded that our client had been driving the vehicle.
During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that
witnesses, after initially claiming that a black man was
driving the vehicle, ultimately stated that the vehicle's
driver was an Hispanic man.
Our client sustained a fracture of the shaft of his right,
dominant arm's humerus; a fracture of the shaft of his right
leg's femur; a fracture of the same leg's fibula; a fracture of
the same leg's tibia; a fracture of his right knee's patella;
fractures of transverse processes of his L2, L4 and L5
vertebrae; fractures of the lateral and medial pterygoid plates
of his right sphenoid bone, which is a small bone that is
located immediately above the right cheek; a fracture of his
face's right zygomatic arch, which is the prominence of the
right cheek; a comminuted fracture of his right hand's index
finger's distal phalanx , which is the bone nearest the tip of
the finger; fractures of seven ribs; a laceration of his spleen;
a collapse of his bladder; and second-degree burns of the bottom
of his right foot.
Our client was placed in an ambulance, and he was transported to
Nassau University ?Medical Center, in East Meadow. He underwent
open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures of his
right arm and right femur. The femur's fixation hardware was an
intramedullary rod (metal rod).
Our client's hospitalization lasted 17 days, and he subsequently
underwent 41 days of inpatient rehabilitation. The
rehabilitation was immediately followed by a hospitalization
that lasted 22 days, and our client subsequently underwent.
26 days of inpatient rehabilitation. He also underwent a short
course of outpatient physical therapy, and he claimed that he
performed independent therapeutic exercises with the assistance
of relatives. On May 6, 2009, he underwent a cystoscopy, which
involved instrumental exploration of his urethra and bladder,
and a cystotomy, which involved an incision of h is bladder.
Our client claimed that he suffers constant residual pain that
stems from his back and his right leg, that he suffers residual
incontinence of his bladder, and that he suffers residual
impairment of his short-term memory. He sought recovery of
damages for past and future pain and suffering.
RESULT The jury found that "the confessor" was driving when the
accident occurred. Thus, it determined that owner of the vehicle
was liable for the