Preszler Injury Lawyers Secure $2.4 Million Judgment in Alesu v. Palomares

Preszler Injury Lawyers’ Christopher McDougall and Farzad Balandari successfully represented the plaintiff in Alesu v. Palomares, a case that concerned two motor vehicle collisions. Liability for the first collision was disputed, while the defendant in the second action did not seriously contest liability. Justice Lawn found both defendants liable and assessed damages at approximately $2.4 million, with the final amount dependent on the calculation of the plaintiff’s net past income loss and any applicable statutory deductions.

Before the accidents, the plaintiff had a varied entrepreneurial history involving restaurants, importing chemicals, commercial lighting, home construction, renovation, and property flipping. Shortly before the first accident, he began working with a small home-renovation business. He had an informal agreement with the owner of the business that contemplated the plaintiff would eventually take over the business and receive 90% of its profits.

How The Court Determined Liability for Both Collisions

The Court accepted that the first accident occurred when the defendant’s SUV sideswiped the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing it to leave the roadway. Although the plaintiff’s discovery evidence differed in some respects from his trial account, the Court found that the objective vehicle damage supported the plaintiff’s version. Collision-reconstruction evidence indicated that the localized damage was consistent with a sideswipe and inconsistent with the defendant’s proposed rear-end scenario. No contributory negligence was established.

The second collision occurred in a parking lot when the defendant drove across the plaintiff’s lane between parked vehicles. The plaintiff’s evidence was uncontested, and the Court found the second defendant liable.

Chronic Injuries and Permanent Disability Resulting From the Accidents

The plaintiff developed chronic physical, cognitive, and psychological symptoms, including neck and back pain, headaches, tinnitus, light and sound sensitivity, fatigue, concentration difficulties, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, tremors, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The medical evidence supported diagnoses of soft-tissue injury, mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and chronic PTSD. The Court found that the plaintiff was disabled from all employment at the time of trial and was likely permanently disabled.

The Court generally accepted the plaintiff’s symptom evidence, supported by testimony from family members, friends, and business associates describing a marked decline in his physical functioning, personality, social involvement, housekeeping, and ability to parent. The lay witnesses described a formerly energetic, meticulous, social and highly involved father who became withdrawn, physically limited, cognitively impaired and dependent on his elderly mother. The Court described this evidence as “clear and compelling,” “remarkably consistent,” and largely unchallenged. The plaintiff’s account of his diminished ability to parent was found particularly poignant.

Find Out if You Have a Case in Under 5 Minutes

Speak to a Lawyer Now!