Parking Lot Collision Results in $287,000 Settlement

Truck traveling in reverse in parking lot strikes decedent, pinning him between defendant’s truck and another vehicle – Several seconds of consciousness – Plaintiff contends that although brief, pain from exsanguination is severe – Plaintiff claims decedent sends $400 per month to wife and four children in India.

In this action, the plaintiff contended that as the 53-year-old decedent was waiting in the parking lot for his cousin to finish his overnight shift at the defendant Dunkin Donuts, one of the defendant’s truckers failed to make observations as he was traveling in reverse. The plaintiff contended that as a result, the decedent was struck and pinned between the rear of the defendant’s truck and another vehicle. The plaintiff contended that an artery was severed in the decedent’s leg and that he lost extensive blood, losing consciousness at the scene.

The defendant maintained that the decedent was conscious for several seconds only and denied that he experienced significant pain and suffering. The plaintiff’s trauma surgeon would have countered that although brief, the pain and suffering from the loss of extensive blood that caused the loss of consciousness was severe. The decedent left a wife and four adult children who resided in India. The plaintiff contended that the decedent regularly sent approximately $400 per month to his wife. The plaintiff also contended that the decedent spoke on the phone to members of his family frequently and that the loss of guidance and advice under Green vs. Bitner was very substantial.

The defendant would have denied that the plaintiff could document either the earnings or the alleged contributions. The defendant argued that decedent had minimal contact with his family in India as he had been residing in the U.S. for over five years. The case settled prior to trial for $287,000.

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Sitemap ]