Morrison Mahoney Partner Peter Monaco recently obtained a defense verdict in Springfield District Court for our trucking client and their driver.
A tractor trailer owned by our client and operated by their employee made contact with a building in Springfield, MA in 2019, causing damage to the rear brick wall of the building. Prior to our involvement, the client settled the claim directly with the commercial tenant operating out of the location and did so without a release. The property owner, who had leased the building to the commercial tenant, then claimed damage to façade on the side of the building. This was reported more than a year later in 2020– the property owner claimed this damage was also caused by the initial accident and filed suit against our clients.
Despite causation issues, Plaintiff rejected a reasonable settlement offer and the case proceeded to trial. Over two days in Springfield District Court, Peter was able to enter into evidence a report from the commercial tenant to the Plaintiff landlord indicating that the subsequent damage was caused by a storm, and evidence that Plaintiff landlord had failed to conduct masonry inspections that were recommended in an inspection report appended to the property lease. Peter was also able to effectively cross-examine Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s engineering expert, with regard to his misunderstanding or ignorance of crucial facts in the case. Our client truck driver also was able to testify capably on direct examination as to his low speed, direction of impact contrary to Plaintiff expert’s report/testimony, and location of impact far from the alleged subsequent damage location and without involvement to the building structural elements. Peter also used an engineering expert to establish that the initial accident at the rear of the building would not have caused the damage to the side of the building, more than 14 months later, and that the subsequent damage was due to age, deterioration, and potentially the reported storm.
The jury deliberated through lunch, and returned a verdict shortly thereafter, finding that while the driver was negligent, his negligence was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
