$500,000 Memphis Jury Verdict

A Memphis jury, which included a teacher, doctor, firefighter, and small business owner, returned a verdict on February 12, 2013 for $500,000, finding that the driver of an SUV was primarily responsible for an interstate crash that left both him and his passenger dead.

In this wrongful death case we represented the family of the passenger who was killed in a single vehicle wreck on Interstate I-240 North in Memphis, Tennessee. One witness saw the occupants arguing several blocks before the SUV drove onto the interstate. Other witnesses indicated that the argument continued on the interstate and that the SUV was speeding at the time of the crash. All the witnesses stated that the SUV suddenly veered to the right and struck a guardrail and then a column supporting a bridge overpass.

At trial, we showed the jury that everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car must follow basic driver safety rules, including driving at a safe rate of speed and keeping the car under control. We also showed that drivers should pull the car over if it becomes too dangerous to continue driving. These basic safety rules exist to prevent deaths and injuries on the highway and to protect all of us. In the end, the jury determined that the driver was 80% at fault for the wreck and the passenger was 20% at fault.

The deceased passenger left behind three children ranging from 16 to 19 at the time of her death. As the deceased was disabled at the time of the wreck, there was no claim for loss of earning capacity. Nonetheless, we showed the jury the harms, losses and hardships caused to the children as a result of their mother’s death. Ultimately the jury agreed that the love, affection, guidance, and protection of a parent has true value. Although we only asked for a verdict of $250,000, the jury doubled this amount on the verdict form to $500,000.

The case was tried by Thomas Greer.

$500,000 Jury Verdict

DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients’ cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case.