FACTS OF THE CASE:
Plaintiff was stopped for approximately five seconds while waiting for a red light. He was driving his Mazda 3 with two passengers: Plaintiff number 1 as well as Plaintiff number 2. Plaintiffs’ vehicle was facing westbound on a boulevard. Defendant was driving her Suzuki and rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant was in violation of Vehicle Code section 21703, “following too closely”. All three plaintiffs sustained injuries as a result of this collision and sought medical care as outlined below.
LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
Plaintiff was rear-ended. Defendant does not contest liability as Plaintiff’s property damage was paid by the nsurance, Defendant’s carrier.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES
Plaintiff suffered trauma to his head, wrist, neck, low-back, and upper back as a result of this collision. Shortly after the accident plaintiff sought treatment from a physician. The physician conducted a full exam.
Plaintiff number 1 sustained injuries to her neck, back, and stomach as well as experienced severe dizziness and nausea. She was several months pregnant at the time of the accident and as a result was anxious regarding the health of the baby during the entire duration of her pregnancy. The day after the accident, she sought evaluation from her Obstetrician who advised her that the baby seemed okay but that she should monitor her condition carefully during her pregnancy. Plaintiff then went to a physican where a full exam was conducted.
Plaintiff number 2 was examined by his primary pediatrician. This Plaintiff was a few years old at the time of the accident and was secured with a child safety seat. He exhibited signs of being scared to enter cars – more than the average of a child of that age and cried more than usual after the accident.
Plaintiff number 1 had her back and neck turned sideways looking at her child in the back seat at the time the collision occurred. Due to this seating position, she has had a long and difficult recovery. Flexion tests conducted on during the final examination of the doctor revealed that Plaintiff was still not back to normal. However, the doctor indicated that he believed that therapeutic treatment reached its maximum effect.
THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!
Personal Injury Lawyer