THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT
Serving Southern Indiana and Greater Louisville
Winter 2007 Newsletter
Firm Happenings
Paste your new content here....Client Outcomes
THIS WEBSITE AND THE RESULTS DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUE AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR ATTORNEY OR CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LEGAL SERVICES. ADDITIONALLY, WARD, TYLER & SCOTT, LLC DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT PAST RESULTS PREDICT FUTURE SUCCESS AND CANNOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE RESULTS IN PENDING OR FUTURE CASES.
Legal Updates
EstateHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE
Our Perspective
Featured Trial Report
| Caption: |
Jason C. Johnson v. Polly’s Freeze | |
| Cause No.: |
22C01-0105-CT-251 | |
| Court: |
Floyd Circuit | |
| Judge: |
Hon. J. Terrence Cody | |
| Carrier: |
Westfield Group | |
| Damages Awarded: |
None (defense verdict on liability) | |
| Incurred Medicals: |
Approximately $54,765.00 | |
| Last Demand: |
$60,000.00 | |
| Last Offer: |
$25,000.00; withdrawn after mediation | |
| QSO: |
$5,000.00 post-mediation | |
| WT&S Attorneys: |
Scott L. Tyler and George A. Budd | |
| Synopsis: | On May 28, 1999, Brian Johnson was leaving the parking lot of Polly’s Freeze, an ice cream store located on State Road 62 in Floyd County, Indiana. As he pulled out onto S.R. 62, he struck a motorcycle operated by Jason Johnson (no relation). Jason Johnson, who was not wearing a helmet, sustained various injuries, including an alleged brain injury. He sued Brian Johnson, Polly’s Freeze and the State of Indiana under negligence theories. The claims against Polly’s Freeze and the State of Indiana were predicated on the notion that their acts or omissions impaired Brian Johnson’s view of traffic on S.R. 62. Brian Johnson and the State of Indiana settled with Plaintiff pre-trial. Brian Johnson testified that the accident was his fault, and that his view was not obstructed. Similarly, the investigating officer concluded that Brian Johnson’s negligence was the cause of the accident, and an eyewitness did not see any obstruction. At trial, Jason Johnson’s lack of helmet was admitted over his objection. Defendant made the argument that, since a person with a motorcycle permit would have a duty to wear such a helmet, no less should be required of someone lacking even a permit. Defendant’s expert opined that had Plaintiff worn a helmet, he would not have sustained a head injury. Plaintiff filed a lengthy motion in limine to exclude this expert on Rule 702/Daubert grounds. That motion was denied. Following a four-and-a-half-day jury trial, the jury entered a defense verdict on behalf of Polly’s Freeze. Plaintiff agreed to forego an appeal or Motion to Correct Error in exchange for Defendant’s agreement not to seek attorney’s fees owed pursuant to the rejected qualified settlement offer. |
