Opinion
Nos. 476829, 474626, 474193
August 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These three cases arose out of a collision between a bus and a recycling truck on February 15, 2001. One of the plaintiffs was the driver of the bus, Mayberry, two of the plaintiffs Harris and Morrison were passengers on the bus. The impact between the two vehicles was relatively minor; the bodies of the vehicles did not come in contact with each other. The collapsible mirror of the recycling truck came in contact with the bus mirror which was "welded" to the bus according to the bus driver.
The court has read the transcript and examined the exhibits and concludes the plaintiffs have established that the driver of the truck, Williams, was negligent in causing this accident. The court concludes he failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to keep his vehicle under proper control. The truck Williams was driving was a fairly wide vehicle traveling down the one northbound lane on State Street. The bus was in the southbound lane. The bus driver testified that he observed the truck approaching him at about two blocks away. He said it was not in its own lane and he therefore started sounding his horn and brought the bus to a stop. Passengers, Morrison and Harris confirm that the bus driver sounded his horn, supporting the driver's observation about the location of the truck — why else would he sound his horn and bring his bus to a stop immediately before the collision. Morrison also said that when she looked out the front window of the bus she saw that the truck was in the southbound lane. Morrison said the truck was going 10 to 15 mph. She also said she thought the bus was slowing down as the truck approached but it was possible that it had stopped. CT Page 11889-b
The truck driver, Williams, said he was driving in the southbound lane at between 5 and 10 miles per hour when a car parked along the curb suddenly and without warning pulled out in front of him. A worker on the truck, Palmieri, said the car pulled out inches in front of the truck. Williams said he braked and swerved to the left to avoid the car that pulled out in front of him and this caused the collision.
Pictures introduced into evidence show skid marks on the yellow line left by the truck. Given the location of the skid marks, a portion of the truck and its mirror would necessarily extend beyond the yellow line. The skid marks do not show any evidence of swerving but appear to be straight and parallel to the yellow line. The skid marks might corroborate the truck driver's story that a car pulled out in front of him and he braked. But the direction and location of the marks indicate the truck was in the wrong lane and that the accident would not have happened if it was in the proper lane even if a car had pulled out in front of the bus.
Even if William's version of events is accepted it is not credible that an attentive driver, knowing people were in the habit of pulling out in front of him, could not have simply stopped his truck to avoid hitting the car without swerving to the left if he was in fact going only 5 to 10 miles per hour.
The court finds liability in favor of the plaintiffs.
For the court at least the more difficult part of this case is the damage claim of each plaintiff. This was a minor impact causing negligible damage to the vehicles — external mirrors were damaged. That is the only impact involved; the bodies of the vehicles did not come in contact. The testimony and pictures introduced into evidence indicate that both vehicles were heavy and large. It is difficult to imagine that the contact here caused any violent or even extensive movement of the bus when only their mirrors came in contact. Also the bus driver had apparently stopped his vehicle before the impact. And at the scene of the accident the passenger plaintiffs were given "courtesy cards" prepared by the bus company and neither Morrison or Harris indicated on the cards that they had received injuries. An officer who arrived at the scene went on the bus and asked if anyone was injured and no one responded. A bus company supervisor came over to the officer at some point after that and said the driver and passengers were now claiming they were injured. He CT Page 11889-c confirmed the passenger complaints by going on the bus a second time.
The bus driver also initially did not indicate he was injured; later he said he was. He, Morrison, and Harris were then taken by ambulance to the hospital.
Searle Mayberry
He was the bus driver and was seated close to the point of impact. At the scene he did eventually complain of neck pain. He was brought to the hospital by ambulance and received treatment. Afterwards he went for physical therapy 8 to 10 times at the hospital occupational health unit from February 19, 2001 to March 15, 2001. He was prescribed medication which he took. He missed time from work and was on light duty for a period of time.
As far as any claim of ongoing problems with his neck after the accident, the claim it is somewhat unclear. He said his neck flared up once or twice every three months and when it did he took medication. At the time of trial he said he was healed, he was fine. In the physical therapy reports it is noted he told a doctor that on the last day of treatment, March 15, 2001 he had no neck pain or radiating pain. On cross examination he said his neck pain stopped "approximately a month to three months afterward." But he testified that he was not candid with the doctor on March 15th about lack of pain — he testified he did have pain but he wanted to go back to full-time duty, light duty required him to do some outside work and it was cold.
The court will award the full medicals of $3,160.37 and the lost wage claim of $1,280.68 for a total of
Economic Damages $4,443.05 As for non-economic damages the court will award Non Economic Damages $4,000.00 _________ Total damages for Searle Mayberry $8,443.05Tameka Morrison
Ms. Morrison was seated on a bench seat behind the driver fairly close to the point of contact between the two vehicles. She had been leaning forward prior to the collision and had not CT Page 11889-d gotten all the way back in her seat when it happened. The impact rocked the bus a few times according to Morrison, she was thrown back into her seat hitting her head against the window. She felt pain in her lower back and neck which she had never injured before.She was taken by ambulance to the hospital and told the hospital staff her head, back, and neck were bothering her. She was placed in a neck brace. She was given medication and x-rays were taken. She complained of headaches but had had migraine headaches in the past. She went to see a chiropractor, Dr. Sorrentino, the day after the accident and complained to him of neck, shoulder and head pain; she treated with Dr. Sorrentino for about six weeks, her last visit being on March 29, 2001. She says she still had all the previously mentioned complaints of pain on that date. She received ice, heat, stretching and massage treatments. She was given exercises to do and she says she still does them.
She claims she did not continue treatment with Dr. Sorrentino because it was too difficult to get around by bus. She was never released from treatment.
Morrison complains she is still affected by pain, her neck bothers her two or three times in two months, her back hurts her more — three or four times a month. She wore a back brace two or three times a week as a result of the accident. Because of these conditions she "take(s) things slow" at work. She is a nurse's assistant and does physical work including lifting patients. Morrison is not, making a lost wage claim but was out of work for only two weeks. She did get a car in 2004 so could have resumed treatment without having to rely on buses. She indicated, however, that she did not want to accrue more unpaid bills.
In February 2005 she injured her back at work lifting a patient; she describes this injury as being serious. She received five weeks of treatment as a result of this accident and wears a back brace every day since this accident. Ms. Morrison does not relate all her present back pain to the bus accident. She did say she did not hurt her neck in the February 2005 accident.
Basically she testified she can do all her household and work chores but she has to work through pain as a result of the accident in 2001. As far as social activities Ms. Morrison testified that she enjoyed playing golf prior to the 2001 CT Page 11889-e accident but has not been able to do so since.
The court also examined the EMT, hospital, and chiropractic records submitted as exhibits in this case.
The EMT report mentions complaint of neck and back pain but no head pain although Ms. Morrison did say she hit her head against the bus window. The emergency room report indicates she complained of neck pain, she was given a brace and medication and was diagnosed as having neck strain. Another hospital report indicates she also complained of low back pain. (Interestingly this report says she hit her head against the window when the bus decelerated). There were x-rays taken which indicated no evidence of fracture and normal alignment.
A February 21, 2001 report from Dr. Sorrentino indicate cervical ranges of motion was restricted due to cervical pain and spasm, the latter is an objective symptom. The same observations were made as to the lumbar spine. Morrison also complained of headaches to Sorrentino. There are two pages of office notes from Dr. Sorrentino most of which I cannot read. No final letter was submitted by him.
The court awards economic damages as follows:
Economic Damages $2,896.60 Non Economic Damages $7,000.00 _________ Total damages for Tameka Morrison $9,896.00John Harris
Harris was seated in a regular bus seat farther away from the point of impact, just before the middle of the bus. He said the impact caused the bus to be jolted, he "went up and came back." He felt something hit him in the back of the head and felt pain in his head with headaches. On the courtesy card he said he would be late for work due to the accident but did not indicate that he was injured. He was taken to the hospital and complained his neck and back hurt, especially the upper part of his back. He also complained of headaches. At the hospital he was given pain medication but no x-rays were taken. A couple of days later he sought chiropractic treatment. He had also received treatment from this chiropractor for a 1999 accident in which he also injured his neck, back and lower back. He said these injuries no CT Page 11889-f longer bothered him and he had returned to work full-time. For this accident the chiropractor treated him with heat and exercise along with massage. He went to twenty-one treatment sessions, he was able to work but he had discomfort, he just did not do as much.When Doctor Herring released him after three months he said he still had neck and upper back problems — his back and tension in his neck on a weekly basis.
He was involved in another accident in August 2002; by then the effects of this accident had cleared up. Harris responded affirmatively to a question that his present claim was for a period of time "immediately after the accident." But at a deposition in March 2004 he seemed to say the 2001 accident injuries still bothered him from time to time. At the deposition he denied injuring his neck in the 1999 accident.
Harris makes no lost wage claim but only missed one day of work.
The court has examined treatment records submitted into evidence. At the hospital he complained his head hurt, he said he had mild neck pain and stiffness; the neck was tender on palpitation. He was told to apply ice to his neck at home.
A "final report" from Dr. Herring, dated May, 2, 2001, indicated normal life activities were resumed "without any episodes of neck pain experienced." Range of motion was within normal limits. Mild tenderness was noted where "deep digital pressure was applied." The letter said Harris may be predisposed to periods of exacerbation and remission "due to the nature of his injuries" but there is no explanation for that observation. The chiropractic treatment records indicate Harris received electric stimulation vibration, manipulation. Interestingly, at six visits in April, Harris complained of some neck pain, on May 1, 2001 "the patient complains of pain in the neck."
On May 2nd, as noted, the pain was all gone. On May 1, 2001 the office note said the patient should return three times weekly, on May 2, 2001 Dr. Herring said no further ongoing treatment was necessary. As late as an April 17, 2001 visit, ranges of motion were painful and restricted at end ranges. On May 2, 2001 indicated cervical range of motion was within normal limits. CT Page 11889-g
The court awards damages as follows:
Economic Damages $3,971.30 Non Economic Damages $4,000.00 _________ Total Damages for John Harris $7,971.30 Corradino, J. CT Page 11889-h