Our injury lawyers recently settled a St. Louis car accident case for a high amount 2 weeks before trial in St. Louis, Missouri. Good settlement for a great client, makes my love my job when I represent good people.… you know who you are, thanks for letting me help you!
A summary of the case is below:
According to the Missouri Highway Patrol, in 2011 there we 85,206 car crashes in Missouri caused by drivers, following too close, not paying attention, and driving too fast.
As a safety rule, drivers must keep a safe distance from the car in front of them to prevent rear end crashes to protect us all from injury and death. Another safety Rule, drivers must keep a careful lookout to prevent crashes and protect us all from injury and death.
If a driver violates these rules of the road and causes harm, the driver is responsible for those harms and losses.
April 26, 2011, Defendant drives a White Ford Ranger pickup truck and at about 5:00 pm the Defendant drives through St. Louis on highway 270 near Missouri Bottom road. It is daylight and the weather is clear and dry. It is rush hour, traffic is heavy, and Defendant drives 45 MPH.
Traffic stops in front of the defendant driver and he crashes his truck into the back of a blue pickup truck stopped in front of him. The crash pushes that blue pickup truck into the car in front of it. The driver of that blue pickup truck is our client.
We sued Defendant and his company because according to the police officer the Defendant admitted that traffic came to a stop, he did not stop in time, and he crashed into the back of our client’s truck.
We sued them because anyone on the road can get hurt or killed from drivers not keeping a safe distance or not paying attention, putting all of us in danger.
Had Defendant kept a safe distance or paid attention this crash would not have happened. Defendant would have been able to stop before crashing into the back of our client’s truck.
1. Defendant caused the car accident.
Hazelwood Missouri Police investigated the crash and determined the defendant caused the crash. The reporting officer testified that the defendant admitted that traffic came to a stop in front of him, he admitted he tried to stop but that he could not and crashed into the back of our client’s vehicle.
The police officer testified that the defendant driver did not say anything about a phantom vehicle or hit and run car when the car accident was reported. The officer testified that had Defendant said anything about a phantom vehicle he would have noted it in his police report.
Furthermore, the Defendant claims the phantom vehicle struck him from behind. But the Defendant also admitted that there was no damage to the back of the truck he was driving. Defendant and his insurance company took several pictures of his truck after the crash. They took no pictures of the back of the truck.
Lastly, had the defendant driver told the police above the hit and run or phantom vehicle impact, the officer told us that even if there was no damage to the back of the defendant’s truck, that the officer still would have noted the impact on his report. No impact from behind was noted on the accident report.
2. Our client did not do anything wrong.
Defendant admitted that our client did not do anything to cause this crash. The police officer testified that our client told him that he stopped for traffic and was hit from behind. The crash forced him into the car ahead of him. The office told us our client did not say anything about a phantom vehicle to the police.
3. Before coming to trial we had to determine that our client’s injuries and pain were from the crash and not from something else.
St. Louis spine surgeon, Dr Matthew Gornet, MD was our client’s doctor. He testified that he suffered a large disc herniation and disc tear in his lower back. Dr Gornet testified that this large disc herniation was a result of the crash and the injury is not present in a 2005 MRI our client had done because of unrelated back pain.
The large disc herniation caused pressure on the nerves by the spinal cord and that causes pain in his back and radiating down into his legs and feet.
As a result of the large disc herniation our client underwent back surgery to correct the problem.
Proving the 3 things above through discovery and depositions and before getting to trial allowed us to settle this case for an amount that is well above average for this type of case.