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

[REDACTED] v. John Hobbs

Published: Nov. 7, 2015 | Result Date: Sep. 24, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIVRS1308329 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Moussa A. Helo
(Abkarian & Associates)


Defendant

Johnathan D. Cloud
(Law Office of Johnathan D. Cloud)

Daniel M. Kruid
(Hartsuyker, Stratman & Williams-Abrego)


Experts

Plaintiff

Johnny Mansour
(technical)

Facts

On May 9, 2013, plaintiff [REDACTED] was traveling on the I-10 freeway in the number 1 lane when she was rear-ended by defendant John Hobbs. Plaintiff sued defendant.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended she was coming to a stop in stop-and-go traffic from approximately 40-45 mph, and that the defendant hit her from behind as she slowed to under 10 miles per hour.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant did not dispute liability. Defendant disputed whether plaintiff was actually injured as a result of the accident.

Defendant argued that all of plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing based on documented evidence of plaintiff's prior injury history over the four-year period preceding the accident. Plaintiff's injury history revealed almost the same complaints to every part of plaintiff's body that plaintiff contended was injured as a result of the accident. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's treating chiropractor Dr. Johnny Mansour's opinion of plaintiff's injuries and causation from the accident was baseless as they were based on plaintiff's subjective complaints only.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed her car sustained approximately $4,000 in damage and was totaled. Plaintiff incurred a total of $5,773.80 in economic damages for her treatment at the urgent care center and her chiropractic treatment following the accident.

Injuries

Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries to her neck and middle back, and an exacerbation of a prior lower back. She further claimed to have developed numbness and tingling in her hands, which radiated from her neck, and numbness and tingling in her left leg radiating from her lower back. She also claimed to have developed headaches following the accident. Plaintiff sought medical treatment at the urgent care center the day after the accident. She then treated with Dr. Mansour six days post-accident for approximately four months.

Result

Defense verdict. The jury determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 6, 2013.

Deliberation

1.25 hours

Length

four days


#95711

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

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