Frank Love obtains another Defense Verdict

Frank Love again successfully defended Zarwin Baum’s client, a rideshare driver, at trial in a multi-vehicle, rear-end motor vehicle accident case in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable Glynnis D. Hill. Despite the fact that his client rear-ended codefendant’s vehicle, pushing it into Plaintiff’s vehicle, the jury found that Frank’s client was not negligent and returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The case arose from a nighttime accident on South 26th Street near the merge point with Interstate 76 east. The location of the accident was immediately after a curved area of roadway and after the vehicles had just emerged from under an overpass. When Plaintiff emerged from the overpass, he encountered a disabled vehicle in the roadway. Plaintiff was able to stop his vehicle to avoid colliding with the rear of the disabled vehicle. Codefendant was also able to stop her vehicle to avoid impacting the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Frank’s client was unable to bring his vehicle to a stop to avoid rear-ending codefendant’s vehicle. The force of the impact from Frank’s client pushed codefendant’s vehicle into the rear of Plaintiff’s rental vehicle. Plaintiff’s vehicle was not pushed into the rear of the disabled vehicle.

Plaintiff alleged injuries to his right shoulder and lower back, also asserting that the injuries caused and/or contributed to his decision to close his business, a barbershop. In addition to claims for past and future pain and suffering, Plaintiff also asserted a claim for future medical costs throughout the remainder of his life totaling more than $360,000.00.

At trial, Frank attacked Plaintiff’s failure to establish sufficient facts to prove that his client was actually negligent in causing this accident, emphasizing the lack of data about the speed of the vehicles, the location of the vehicles before and after impact and no evidence to refute the defense evidence that Frank’s client had no opportunity to avoid the stopped vehicle under all the circumstances. Through cross-examination of Plaintiff, Frank challenged the credibility and foundation of Plaintiff’s claims, highlighting his lack of first-hand personal knowledge about the alleged negligent conduct of Frank’s client.

After deliberating for approximately one and a half-hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that either defendant negligently caused the accident.