Curtis Ott Obtains Defense Verdict in Commercial Trucking Case

July 12, 2016 02:34 PM

IADC member Curtis Ott, a partner at Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., and his fellow colleague James Brogdon recently obtained a defense verdict in a commercial trucking case after a four day trial in Marion County, South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Ott and Mr. Brogdon represented the trucking company and its driver. Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle involved in the collision with the tractor-trailer. Plaintiff alleged a traumatic brain injury and sought damages under traditional negligence causes of action against the driver of the tractor-trailer and respondeat superior, negligent hiring and negligent training causes of action against the trucking company. Plaintiff also brought traditional negligence claims against the estate of the driver of the vehicle where Plaintiff was a passenger who was killed in the accident.

At trial, Plaintiff argued through expert testimony that the driver of the tractor-trailer breached his duty of care by failing to recognize the “potential hazard” in co-Defendant’s vehicle that had pulled past the stop bar of the intersection of a rural county road and the four-lane state highway that the driver of the tractor trailer was travelling. Plaintiff also argued that the driver of the tractor-trailer should have swerved right instead of left in his attempt to avoid the co-Defendant’s vehicle that pulled out from the tractor-trailer driver’s right. 

In closing, Plaintiff’s counsel requested damages be awarded in excess of $2,000,000 and for fault to be apportioned to the driver of the tractor-trailer and trucking company and the estate of the driver of the vehicle where Plaintiff was a passenger. After deliberating approximately four hours, the jury returned a defense verdict as to the driver of the tractor-trailer and the trucking company and a verdict of $500,000 against the co-Defendant driver who pulled out in front of the tractor-trailer. 

Past results and testimonials from clients are not to be taken as a representation that the same or similar results can be obtained by the firm in the future.

Back to news
 
Close