Moss & Colella publicizes victory in Courtroom of Appeals determination on advanced no-fault bike accident case | USA Legal Blog
15950
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-15950,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Moss & Colella publicizes victory in Courtroom of Appeals determination on advanced no-fault bike accident case

Moss & Colella publicizes victory in Courtroom of Appeals determination on advanced no-fault bike accident case

Moss & Colella publicizes victory in Courtroom of Appeals determination on advanced no-fault bike accident case

Courtroom finds “no error” in lawyer remarks to jury

Media contact: Barbara Fornasiero, EAFocus Communications, 248.260.8466; barbara@eafocus.com

Southfield, Mich. — January 3, 2019 — David M. Moss, founding accomplice of Southfield-based civil rights and private damage regulation agency Moss & Colella, P.C., introduced victory following a December 27, 2018 Michigan Courtroom of Appeals determination in Frank Wojcik v AAA. That is the second victory within the sophisticated case, the place David Moss and Moss & Colella affiliate lawyer Ryan Piekarski previously won a jury trial.

Background:

It is a declare for Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) advantages underneath the Michigan No-Fault Act. At 10:00 p.m. on July 28, 2013, Plaintiff Frank Wojcik and his girlfriend and passenger Tiffany Clarke, sustained accidents in a bike accident whereas touring northbound on a two-lane roadway in rural Bay County. Wojcik suffered a closed head damage and had no reminiscence of the accident. Clarke testified that simply previous to Wojcik shedding management, a automobile approached from behind, handed the bike, and re-entered the lane in entrance of them, inflicting Wojcik to lose management, fishtail and flip the bike.

In line with Defendant AAA, Wojcik misplaced management of the bike whereas getting into a left-hand curve instantly previous to the intersection, after which the bike ran off the correct facet of the street and crashed right into a ditch. Defendant AAA additional contended that alcohol might have been an element. Extra importantly, AAA argued that “this was a single bike accident with no different automobile ‘involvement.'” The one “eye-witness” that had seen “headlights” for a cut up second earlier than the crash admitted {that a} cornfield obscured his view of the straight a part of the street. The witness testified “…[Wojcik] didn’t even come shut to creating the nook, simply went straight” (suggesting that Wojcik was unable to manage his bike as he entered the curve within the street). Motorcar involvement in the end turned the centerpiece of the trial and the problems offered for enchantment.

A Michigan State Trooper arrived on scene and briefly interviewed each the eyewitness and Clarke. Three days later, the trooper interviewed Clarke once more. Through the interview, Clarke failed to say one other motorcar was concerned within the accident. Later, she swore in an affidavit that “[a] automobile quickly pulled up behind Frank’s bike after which tried to move us by pulling round to our left. The automobile reduce in entrance of us inflicting [Wojcik] to brake to keep away from contact, which resulted in [him] sliding on the gravel and shedding management of the bike.”

Roughly two months later, Clarke submitted a declare for no-fault PIP advantages, alleging it was the opposite automobile that induced Wojcik to lose management. The declare was promptly denied by AAA, prompting Clarke and Wojcik to file their lawsuits. Contemporaneously in a separate submitting, Clarke filed a negligence lawsuit in opposition to Wojcik, claiming that his actions and omissions induced the accident leading to her accidents.

Whereas the 2 circumstances have been nonetheless separate, Wojcik filed a movement for abstract disposition in his case on the problem of motorcar involvement, counting on Clarke’s affidavit and contending that no different proof successfully countered it. The trial courtroom granted the movement, however on Defendant’s interlocutory enchantment, the Courtroom of Appeals reversed, concluding that “Clarke’s credibility, on this case, is essential to figuring out whether or not a motorcar was concerned.” The case was remanded for trial and the jury in the end rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Damages for no-fault PIP advantages and penalty curiosity have been awarded and separate judgments for Clarke and Wojcik have been entered pursuant to the decision.

The Courtroom of Enchantment Findings:

Following trial, AAA filed an enchantment, arguing that the trial courtroom erred (1) in precluding protection counsel from impeaching Clarke with the allegations she made in opposition to Wojcik in her third-party lawsuit, and (2) permitting plaintiff’s counsel to argue that “mere” proof of motorcar involvement was enough to entitle the injured motorcyclist to gather no-fault advantages.

The Courtroom of Appeals rejected each arguments. With respect to AAA’s declare that it was wrongfully denied a chance to introduce Clarke’s grievance, the courtroom held, “[w]hile defendant claims that the exclusion of proof relating to Clarke’s authorized claims in opposition to Wojcik hindered its capability to problem Clarke’s credibility, notably with regard as to whether an SUV induced the accident giving rise to those appeals, a radical evaluate of the report, notably protection counsel’s cross-examination of Clarke, belies the declare.” As for AAA’s declare of “egregious” conduct on the a part of Plaintiff’s counsel in suggesting a special customary of proof than that allowed by regulation, the Courtroom discovered that the jury was instructed correctly on the regulation. “Jurors are presumed to observe directions and defendant is subsequently hard-pressed to claim that it was prejudiced by any alleged errors or that the alleged errors impacted the end result of the jury’s verdict.”

Moss & Colella responds:

David M. Moss, counsel for Wocjik, mentioned the important thing to the trial victory was witness preparation.

“We all the time knew the case would rise or fall on the testimony of Clarke; subsequently, we needed to make sure that she was completely ready for a rigorous cross examination,” Moss mentioned. “Whereas establishing Clarke’s credibility was necessary, exposing the inexperience of the trooper and the shortcoming of the eye-witness to have really seen the accident have been equally as influential.”

Ryan Piekarski argued the case earlier than the Courtroom of Appeals.

“From the beginning, the panel was troubled by AAA’s lack of ability to cross-examine Clarke on the allegations in her negligence case; nevertheless, I used to be capable of level to quite a few locations within the report the place the protection had the chance to problem her credibility earlier than the jury,” Piekarski mentioned. “Having a exact recollection of the report, along with with the ability to shortly cite to the authorized requirements and precedent, have been essential to flipping the panel.”

About Moss & Colella

Established in 1997, Moss & Colella represents the victims of private damage, civil rights violations, discrimination, medical malpractice, and wrongful loss of life. In case you or a cherished one is trying to find a Michigan police brutality lawyer or a Michigan truck accident lawyer, look no additional. The agency is acknowledged as a frontrunner in advanced tort litigation, together with extra and lethal power, jail loss of life, sexual abuse and harassment, auto and truck accidents, bike accidents and different severe damage and wrongful loss of life claims. To be taught extra concerning the agency and its various areas of follow, go to www.mosscolella.com.

The put up Moss & Colella announces victory in Court of Appeals decision on complex no-fault motorcycle accident case appeared first on The Moss And Colella Law Firm.

No Comments

Post A Comment