SKETCHES OF COURT: Jury finds comparative liability in bike-car accident trial
Court sketch by Alba Acevedo
In this courtroom sketch, Hon. Reginald Boddie listens as plaintiff’s attorney Paul Maloney IV (standing) of the law offices of Edelman & Edelman, addresses the jury during Brozicek v. Vargas in Kings County Civil Term. At issue in the motor vehicle accident trial was the determination of liability.
Brozicek was riding his bike along Flushing Avenue, a two-way street, looking to make a left turn into a T-intersection at 53 Street in May 2013. He alleges that his view was obstructed by a stopped car in front of him in backed-up traffic, but that the driver waived him on. Brozicek crossed the double-yellow line and was struck by the defendant’s vehicle in oncoming traffic.
Vargas was represented by Robert M. Smith (at right), of the law offices of Richard T. Lau & Associates. Smith faulted Brozicek for failing to follow the rules of the road by turning left in front of oncoming cars when it was evidently unsafe to do so.
Maloney faulted Vargas as negligent for failing to see what should be seen. The defendant driver testified that traffic in his lane was moving, and that he had not seen Brozicek at any time before the impact.
The jury returned a comparative liability verdict, finding fault with both parties and attributing 65 percent negligence to Vargas.
The attorneys avoided a damages trial by stipulating that the total damages sustained by the plaintiff equaled $200,000, which they then reduced by the jury’s finding of 35 percent comparative fault on the plaintiff, and further reduced by the existing liability coverage that existed at the time of the accident, which was $100,000.
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
Leave a Comment
