Moss & Colella declares victory in Court docket of Appeals determination on complicated no-fault bike accident case

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

Moss & Colella declares victory in Court docket of Appeals determination on a complicated no-fault bike accident case

Court docket finds “no error” in legal professional remarks to the jury

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

Southfield, Mich. — January 3, 2019 — David M. Moss, the founding associate of Southfield-based civil rights and private harm regulation agency Moss & Colella, P.C., introduced victory following December 27, 2018, Michigan Court docket 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 legal professional Ryan Piekarski previously won a jury trial.

Background:

This can be 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 closed head harm and had no reminiscence of the accident. Clarke testified that simply previous to Wojcik shedding management, an 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 accordance 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 precise facet of the street and crashed right into a ditch. Defendant AAA additional contended that alcohol could 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). Motorized vehicle involvement, in the end, grew to become 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 motorized vehicle was concerned with 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 reduces 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 triggered 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 triggered 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 motorized vehicle 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 Court docket of Appeals reversed, concluding that “Clarke’s credibility, on this case, is essential to figuring out whether or not a motorized vehicle 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 Court docket of Attraction 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 motorized vehicle involvement was adequate to entitle the injured motorcyclist to gather no-fault advantages.

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

Moss & Colella responds:

David M. Moss, counsel for Wojcik, stated 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 stated. “Whereas establishing Clarke’s credibility was vital, exposing the inexperience of the trooper and the lack of the eye-witness to have really seen the accident have been equally as influential.”

Ryan Piekarski argued the case earlier than the Court docket of Appeals.

“From the beginning, the panel was troubled by AAA’s incapability 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 document the place the protection had the chance to problem her credibility earlier than the jury,” Piekarski stated. “Having an exact recollection of the document, along 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 non-public harm, civil rights violations, discrimination, medical malpractice, and wrongful loss of life. In the event, you or a liked one is trying to find a Michigan police brutality lawyer or a Michigan truck accident lawyer at Moss & Colella, look no additional. The agency is acknowledged as a frontrunner in complicated tort litigation, together with extra and lethal pressure, jail loss of life, sexual abuse and harassment, auto and truck accidents, bike accidents and different severe harm and wrongful loss of life claims. To be taught extra in regards to the agency and its various areas of observing, go to www.mosscolella.com.

The publish 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.