In litigation following a T-bone crash, an insurance company had the opportunity to settle for $50,000, but a jury verdict of nearly $200,000 and interest on the offer of compromise led to an award six times the amount proposed.
Michael Festa and his company, MyHoopty.com LLC, sued Alexandria Quinones and brought claims of negligence, statutory recklessness and common-law recklessness.
Festa was driving his tow truck, and when he turned left, the defendant tried to pass the plaintiff on the left side of the street, which resulted in a T-bone collision and injury to Festa and property damage to his truck, according to the plaintiff.
On Sept. 19, a Waterbury jury agreed with Festa’s claims of negligence and statutory and common-law recklessness, and awarded double damages totaling $184,302. The jury concluded that Festa was 10% liable, which his trial attorney, Mohan Sreenivasan of East Rock Law, said was likely due to Festa’s testimony that he turned right first to make the left turn.
The jury also awarded MyHoopty.com, Festa’s business, $8,858.79 in economic damages.
Sreenivasan said with the double damages, common-law recklessness and interest from the $50,000 offer of compromise to Travelers Insurance, the defendant’s insurer, the total judgment is around $305,000.
Counsel for the defendant, Allen McMahon Even of the Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty, did not respond to a request for comment.
At the crash scene, Sreenivasan said there was a surveillance camera that caught the incident, and Quinones was found at fault by the police. However, the video evidence was no preserved because “it was so clear-cut,” Sreenivasan said.
“The defendant tried to make a spoliation-of-evidence argument, but … there’s a carve-out to hearsay where surveillance video can be reviewed and can, in fact, be used to make observations and conclusions as evidence from a police report without having to produce that surveillance video,” Sreenivasan said. “They tried to preclude any mention of the video and observations out of the police report, the judge agreed with our argument and the precedent in Connecticut.”
Without that evidence, Sreenivasan said there would have only been “he said, she said” arguments left.
In addition, Sreenivasan said he had to prove Festa only had limited medical care for four months because he could not afford the outstanding $11,500 medical bills, and he did not continue follow-up care with his shoulder injury.
“[The defendant] argued that if he was hurt, he would have taken an ambulance, and … his treatment was conservative, and if he was hurt, he would have continued treatment,” Sreenivasan said. “The jury didn’t buy any of those things, but it was fortunate, because all treatment started and ended in 2020, so it really did bring a cost issue with respect to the treatment.”
In terms of statutory recklessness with the goal of double or triple damages, Sreenivasan said the defendant argued that the plaintiff was attempting to punish the defendant.
“In my rebuttal, I told [the jury] that statutory recklessness isn’t really looked at to compensate the plaintiff further than negligence, what it does is not to punish the defendant, but an effort to deter her conduct or the conduct of others that could perhaps be consistent with her conduct,” Sreenivasan said. “The requisite portion is to ensure that not only this defendant, but any defendant … not act in this way. And not just the safety of my client, but everyone in this state. I think that’s really what persuaded them to go down the double damages route, because I think people like to have that kind of control when it comes to personal injury.”
Further, Sreenivasan said this case might have led to a lower judgment if the defendant had admitted liability.
“I think the denial [of liability] when it was so clear-cut inflamed the jury,” Sreenivasan said. “As a plaintiffs attorney, I welcome them continuing to deny. … But realistically, … it would have helped the defendant if they accepted responsibility earlier, and it would indirectly help the plaintiff because he would have gotten to trial or an opportunity to resolve much earlier. But it seems like insurers put a delay in time over doing the practical thing, which would have been being upfront.”
