SKATE BOARDING ACCIDENT

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff was walking his dog while skateboarding in his girlfriend’s apartment parking lot. Defendant was in his SUV vehicle along with his wife when Defendant suddenly accelerated backwards and the vehicle’s right rear corner struck Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s ankle got caught between the right rear tire and the ground. He was dragged approximately seven or eight feet backwards and then two or three feet forward until his ankle was released from the grip of the tire. The impact of the vehicle and the subsequent dragging caused injury to plaintiff’s neck, back, shoulder, knee, and ankle. Defendant also had injuries to his fingernails which were caused when he attempted to grab on to the brake light of the vehicle so he would not be entirely run over by the car’s tires.

Shortly after the impact Plaintiff went to speak with Defendant. The police report indicated that “P1”, defendant, was the cause of the accident due to “unsafe backing”.

Defendant changed his story numerous times in the course of his deposition under oath. He initially testified that he was stopped at the time of impact and that he was not backing up. When shown the police report’s indication that he was backing unsafely, he alleged that the police officer lied in the report. Later, he admitted that he was backing – and not stopped – at the time of impact. He also stated that until the day of the deposition he never knew what “object” he hit, even though he stated he read the police report which clearly indicates that the “object” was a skateboard. Defendant testified that he never hit the plaintiff, but rather only hit “an object”. However, defendant testified that the first time he saw plaintiff was only after the accident, and he did not see him prior to the accident, ultimately admitting that he did not know whether he hit anything other than the “object”.

INJURIES:    

After being struck and dragged by defendant’s vehicle, plaintiff immediately suffered a dislocated right shoulder and severe pain in his right knee, left ankle, as well as fingernails. Plaintiff sought treatment at Kaiser Permanente Emergency Room. After x-rays were taken, he was diagnosed with a shoulder, knee, and ankle sprain and was given a knee and ankle brace to support the sprains. He was also prescribed pain / anti-inflammatory medication.

Plaintiff followed up with a doctor. He was diagnosed with contusions and sprains as well as “Internal Derangement” of the right knee. Due to constant right knee pain, the doctor also ordered an MRI to be taken of the knee, which ultimately turned out to be negative to any ligament tears. Plaintiff sought physical therapy from that doctor. The doctor  indicated in his report the consistent findings of cervical sprain, left ankle sprain, as well as right knee and shoulder sprains. Plaintiff’s physical therapy treatment consisted of four modalities at each therapy session.

RESIDUAL COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff has intermittent pain in his knee while driving and intends to follow up with an orthopedic specialist.

Plaintiff owns an audio-video installation company. Prior to the accident, he regularly installed heavy equipment and used a ladder. Because of the accident he can no longer perform these duties and can only supervise others.

LIABILITY:

Defendant does not contend that he was not at fault for the unsafe backing and striking of the defendants skateboard. However, defendant contests the fact that plaintiff himself was ever hit. However, the defendant admitted he only saw the plaintiff after the accident for the first time. The dent on defendant’s vehicle does not indicate any scratch or scuffs that may be indicative of a skateboard being thrown at it, as the defendant alleges .

CONCLUSION:

This case was settled out of court, and the client got the money they deserved!

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer
Afriedman.com