Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Motorcycle

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    As always your opinions are valued on this case. $10 will be donated to Alzheimer s Association for your opinion. Thanks, Amy ... On May 24, 2004, the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      As always your opinions are valued on this case. $10 will be donated to Alzheimer's Association for your opinion.
      Thanks,
      Amy





      :




      On May 24, 2004, the plaintiff Arnie was riding his motorcycle ( a crotch rocket) for a “night ride” with another man. The other man was riding ahead of Arnie. The defendant, Harold, saw the first motorcycle go by but did not see Arnie, The defendant was making a right hand turn out of the parking lot when he was rear ended by Arnie. Plaintiff claims he was cut off by Harold.

      The defense expert will testify that the two were drag racing. The expert claims the plaintiff was going between 55-63 MPH and states that if Arnie was going the speed limit, he could have avoided rear ending Harold,

      Plaintiff states he was not drag racing, because if he was, he would have been ahead of the other motocycle which was not a crotch rocket.

      The plaintiff says he was going the speed limit (45 mph) and the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert agrees with him.
      There is an independent eye-witness in NY who will testify that the plaintiff was going 45 MPH and the defendant was going significantly faster then 45 MPH.

      The man riding with Arnie has not been found. He was only known as “RicK” (which might be suspect, since he also helped Arnie’s father take pictures at the scene a few days after the accident).

      Arnie has a serious leg injury which is still infected (osteomyelitis) and may result in either a knee fusion or amputation above the knee. He has rods and screws in his shin right below the knee, he can not run. Most of his previos surgeries involved cleaning out the infection/wound.

      Here are my questions:
      Who is at fault?

      Arnie_______%
      Harold______%
      100%

      HIs past medical expenses are around 450K
      future medical expenses depend on whether he has an amputation but hover around 1 million.
      He is not suing for lost wages.

      He is entitled to $ for pain and suffering, disfigurement, impairment, loss of capacity for thhe enjoyment of life.

      How much would you award Arnie? $___________












      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rob O'Neill
      I believe
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        <<The defendant was making a right hand turn out of the parking lot when he
        was rear ended by Arnie. Plaintiff claims he was cut off by Harold.>>



        I believe most jurisdictions require a driver entering a roadway from a
        parking lot to stop and yield to vehicles on the road, proceeding only when
        they can safely complete the turn. If defendant was rear ended by plaintiff
        he did not yield to vehicles on the roadway.



        It would be interesting to know how far from the parking lot entrance the
        accident occurred.



        << The defense expert will testify that the two were drag racing. The expert
        claims the plaintiff was going between 55-63 MPH and states that if Arnie
        was going the speed limit, he could have avoided rear ending Harold,>>



        Sorry, 55-63 MPH aint drag racing (unless you're on a Vespa). "Crotch
        rockets" can very easily and quickly top 140 MPH. On most roadways in my
        area 10-15 MPH above the posted limit is just the normal flow of traffic.
        Even if defense could "prove" plaintiff was traveling at these speeds they
        are far from reckless.



        << There is an independent eye-witness in NY who will testify that the
        plaintiff was going 45 MPH and the defendant was going significantly faster
        than 45 MPH.>>



        I don't understand this. If the defendant was going faster than the
        plaintiff there is no way the plaintiff could have rear ended the defendant.
        ??!!



        Assuming the accident occurred in close proximity to the parking lot
        entrance and the plaintiff had his lights on I feel the defendant was 100%
        at fault.





        Rob O'Neill

        Advanced Research Group, Inc.

        (630) 938-4716 Office

        (630) 768-6561 Mobile

        (630) 982-0692 Fax

        rroneill@... Email

        Florida License A2900189

        Illinois License 117.001361

        Indiana License PI20900496

        Wisconsin License 16695-062



        CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
        This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended solely for the
        use of the individual named on this transmission. If you are not the
        intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
        or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
        strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
        please destroy this message immediately.









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        If the defense refuses to produce Rick claiming ignorance then a motion in limine should be made denying Arnie the opportunity to tetify as to what year,
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          If the defense refuses to produce Rick claiming ignorance then a "motion in
          limine" should be made denying Arnie the opportunity to tetify as to what
          year, make or model bike Rick was driving. If they were drag racing, I'm
          curious as to what Rick was driving since he was obviously way ahead of
          Arnie. "Might be suspect" is an understatement.

          Any accident scene measurements of distance? Any tire tracks, etc.? What
          was the plaintiff driving?

          The plaintiff's witness from NY is definitely going to hurt their case.
          How could Arnie have rear-ended Harold's vehicle if the vehicle was going
          faster?

          Did the plaintiff ever mention whether or not Arnie had his headlights on?
          I'm curious as to how he could not have seen him coming.

          Also, a significant amount of time had to have lapsed if Arnie did a direct
          rear-end into the plaintiff. If Arnie was actually cut-off by Harold,
          Arnie should have hit some portion of the left side of the vehicle, not the
          rear-end.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.