Miles Hickman (St. Petersburg) (Automobile liability) obtained a complete Defense Verdict in Pinellas County Circuit Court. This successful verdict was made possible by the hard work of all members of Miles’ legal team.
The trial involved two different versions of the same motor vehicle accident. The subject accident occurred at a fork in the road coming from Ulmerton Road down to St. Petersburg. The fork went right to the I-275 South on ramp, and left onto MLK Jr. Street headed south. The impact between the two vehicles occurred on the on-ramp onto I-275 South.
The Plaintiff’s version of the accident was that the Defendant failed to make his turn onto MLK Jr. Street, and instead took the I-275 South exit. Plaintiff then argued the Defendant stopped on I-275 South near the fork and began reversing backwards in order to take the MLK Jr. Street exit, thus impacting the front of her vehicle. The Defendant’s version of the accident was that the Plaintiff failed to slow down around the curves of the on-ramp and then impacted the Defendant’s vehicle from the rear.
At trial, the defense focused on the theme of common sense; that anyone with common sense does not go backwards on an interstate on-ramp. The defense also leaned heavily on the Plaintiff’s failure to provide enough evidence to meet her burden of proof.
The Plaintiff’s theory of the case focused on evidence that the Defendant was following his GPS, and the Plaintiff showed the jury that the fastest route (in general) to the Defendant’s destination was to take the turn onto MLK Jr. Street. The defense rebutted the GPS evidence by showing that the Plaintiff failed to provide any details as to whether MLK Jr. Street was the fastest route on the day in question, considering that roadway conditions on any given day dictate the route given by the GPS. It was also noted to the jury that common sense dictates that the GPS would have re-routed itself if the Defendant missed his turn.
On cross examination, the defense impeached the Plaintiff on multiple inconsistencies in her testimony and explained to the jury on closing that the Plaintiff’s testimony lacked credibility and thus, her entire version of the accident was not credible.
Ultimately, the Jury found that the Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof and returned a verdict of no negligence on behalf of the Defendant.