This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Auto v. Auto
Rear-End Collision/Driveway Accident

Mitchell Mitnick v. Sarah Cleary

Published: Nov. 10, 2007 | Result Date: Oct. 1, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 06E09465 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert J. Russo


Defendant

Jay T. Rubin
(Mark R. Weiner & Associates)


Experts

Plaintiff

Alan H. Lazar
(medical)

Defendant

A. Brian Pires
(medical)

Facts

On Oct. 25, 2004, at 5 p.m., plaintiff Mitchell Mitnick made a left hand turn from Topanga Canyon Boulevard into a parking lot in Woodland Hills. The defendant followed him. The plaintiff stopped to allow a car to back out, was rear-ended by defendant and pushed into the car that was backing out. The property damage was minimal.

Contentions

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff sustained no injury in this low-speed accident, which produced very minor property damage. The defendant contended that plaintiff was not truthful about his pre-existing condition with the doctors he saw subsequent to the accident. The plaintiff's expert was severely impeached with respect to prior injuries and treatment.

Settlement Discussions

The case filed in Unlimited Jurisdiction with a demand of $35,000. When the case was sent to Limited Jurisdiction, the demand was lowered to $25,000. The defendant filed a statutory offer to compromise for $101.

Specials in Evidence

$8,128

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed aggravation of pre-existing back and right leg injuries. The plaintiff claimed the pain increased from six to 11 on the scale of 1-10. MRI taken one year after the incident showed significant disc herniations in the lumbar spine.

Result

Defense verdict. The jury found that the defendant was negligent but not the cause of any harm to the plaintiff.

Other Information

The plaintiff's expert testified that the medical treatment and continuing complaints were caused by the accident despite the fact that the plaintiff had been receiving substantially similar treatment for years, and was involved in several subsequent accidents. The defendant's expert testified that the complaints and treatment subsequent to the accident were identical to the treatment before the accident and that the records subsequent to the accident showed no exacerbation or new injury. FILING DATE: Nov. 29, 2005.

Deliberation

half hour

Poll

12-0 (negligence), 11-1 (causation)

Length

four days


#81757

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390