Auto/Negligence

Defendant Ran Stop Sign -- Spinal Cord Contusion -- Preexisting Stenosis -- Contrib Issue -- Claimed Plaintiff Should Have Seen Not Able To Stop -- $850,000 Mediated Settlement

Brief Statement of Claim: The plaintiff, a cable television installer, suffered a spinal cord contusion when a tractor-trailer truck ran a stop sign and collided with his truck. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in failing to see that the defendant truck driver would not be able to stop at the stop sign.

Principal Injuries (in order of severity): Spinal cord contusion at C4-C5 and C5-C6, superimposed on preexisting severe cervical spinal stenosis, resulting in decompressive laminectomies. Plaintiff's physicians determined that he suffered a 25 percent permanent partial impairment to his entire body.

Special Damages: Medical expenses of $17,696. The issue of lost wages was hotly contested, with plaintiff claiming total disability and defendants claiming that he was employable in non-labor jobs. The plaintiff earned approximately $29,000 per year at the time of the wreck.

Tried or settled: Settled after a mediated settlement conference

County where tried or settled: Bertie

Case Name and number: Therman Reid Hoggard v. Clarence Stallings and GTL Transport Company (Bertie County Superior Court; 94 CVS 139)

Date Concluded: Oct. 16, 1996

Name of Mediator: Bob Beason

Amount: Present value settlement of $850,000, with $486,409 paid in cash and plaintiff paid $1,800 per month for life or 20 years, whichever is longer. In addition, the workers' comp carrier agreed to waive its $82,271 lien, plus pay an additional $50,000 for a clincher agreement.

Insurance Carrier: N/A

Expert Witnesses and areas of expertise: Ira M. Hardy II, M.D., neurosurgeon; Ross Shuping, M.D., neurologist; J. Finley Lee, economist

Attorney for Plaintiff: Joseph T. Edwards of Edwards and Edwards, L.L.P., Greenville

Other Useful Info: N/A

» From the August 18, 1997 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Note: Each individual case is unique with its own set of facts and complexities. These reported cases cannot be used as a basis for predicting results in future cases because each case must be evaluated and judged on its own particular set of facts and circumstances.