Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
General Injury: Cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, pneumothorax, brain damage, motor deficits with resulting locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, impairment to executive function, social and emotional deficits including impulsivity; medical expenses; lost income; loss of future earning capacity.
Summary of Facts:
Cliff Hinkle was riding his recumbent bicycle west on Elk Grove Avenue in Sacramento, CA, June 11, 2005. According to Hinkle, he proceeded partly in the lane and partly on the shoulder. The road shoulder allegedly had a steep ditch on its right, and the shoulder reduced in size through the block. Hinkle was on the block between 23rd Street near 25th Street Northeast when he was allegedly struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Greg Devlin.
Hinkle reportedly suffered a cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, and pneumothorax as a result of the accident. According to Hinkle, he was left with brain damage, motor deficits, including locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, and social and emotional deficits including impulsivity and behavior problems.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Michael Hinkle, as litigation guardian ad litem, for Clint filed a lawsuit against the City of Sacramento, as well as Greg Devlin and his unidentified wife in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged that defendants’ negligence proximately caused his injuries.
The plaintiff contended that the city breached its duty to the plaintiff by failing to keep the roadway in a reasonably safe condition, failing to maintain the required five-foot shoulder adjacent to an impassable and hazardous ditch. A plaintiff’s witness opined that the road failed to provide accommodation for cyclists and pedestrians and failed to warn cyclists and pedestrians of the narrowing shoulder.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.