Hampton Jury Gives $7.5M Award

In what is reportedly the largest verdict in Hampton history, a jury awarded $7.5 million to a woman who sustained a mild traumatic brain injury after her car was sandwiched between a tractor-trailer and a highway guardrail.

The primary symptom of the woman’s brain injury, said her lawyers, was a severe case of post-traumatic shock disorder. They contend that a defense deposition of the woman exacerbated her symptoms, leaving her unable to work.

“The evidence was that she had post-traumatic shock disorder, among other things, from the accident,” said Edward E. Scher of Richmond, who served as co-counsel with Hampton lawyer Stephen M. Smith. “Reliving the experience in this deposition put her on a downward spiral.”

The defendant’s lawyer, Andrew A. Protogyrou of Norfolk, acknowledged the severity of the collision and said the woman deserved compensation. However, he cited at least three “strong” grounds for appeal in the case.

The case is Wesen-Jaques v. Stow Mills Inc.. There is no written opinion.

Crushed Camry

On Dec. 29, 1996, the plaintiff was heading east in the right lane of Interstate 64 in Hampton. She was driving a Toyota Camry with her boyfriend in the front-passenger seat and her three-year-old son secured in a child seat in the back.

Meanwhile, a 1994 Freightliner tractor-trailer was parallel to the plaintiff in the far left lane.

According to Smith, the tractor-trailer merged first into the center lane and then into the right lane, colliding with the plaintiff.

“The tractor grabbed her and crushed her against the guard rail,” said Smith.

He said the tractor-trailer’s rear wheels crushed the Camry, blowing out its windows and flattening its tires. The sedan was dragged about 100 yards before coming to a stop.

“At the scene she was hysterical,” Smith said. “She was worried about her son.”

Protogyrou conceded that the collision was a “very bad accident,” describing the aftermath as “the worst-looking car I’ve seen after an accident in which the driver survived.”

At the accident scene, the woman declined emergency assistance, and she was fully conscious. The next day, a doctor found no evidence of head trauma. Even when the woman complained of problems with her vision and balance six days later, an MRI was negative.

In addition, the woman continued to work, seeing her annual salary rise from $26,000 to $41,000 in a five-year period after the collision.

“That didn’t help the brain-injury case,” Smith remarked.

However, Smith said the woman labored in her final college course and was exhausted at the end of each day at work.

To illustrate the decline in the plaintiff’s cognitive skills, the plaintiff solicited testimony from college professors who had instructed her before and after the collision.

“They gave substantially different descriptions of the type of student she was,” said Scher. “The descriptions they gave were as different as night and day; I thought it was a useful comparison.”

Significantly, the plaintiff’s lawyers noted a severe deterioration in her ability to function after the defendant took her deposition on May 20, 2002.

“The defense deposition hurt them,” said Smith, “because you could see her clearly struggling to answer questions.”

“After the deposition, her symptoms worsened dramatically,” Scher added.

For example, she developed alopecia areata, a condition marked by hair loss.

“The defense contended that there is no known cause of that,” said Scher. “We had experts who said it was caused by stress.”

In addition, Smith said the plaintiff could no longer work after the deposition.

“The testimony is that she’ll never work again; she’s forever unemployable,” Smith said.

“The doctors, at the beginning, did state she had PTSD,” said Protogyrou. “That’s what took her out of work, and that’s what the jury believed.”

At trial, Protogyrou put on evidence showing that the woman didn’t consult a doctor for eight days after the defense deposition. Then, he said, “The general practitioner testified there was no change in her demeanor after the deposition.”

The plaintiffs had no MRI, X-ray or EEG evidence showing a brain injury. “But we had medical doctors who diagnosed the injury based on their treatment and evaluation of her,” said Scher.

Before trial, Protogyrou said the plaintiff demanded $57 million. The defendant countered with a $500,000 offer.

During the trial, the parties edged closer, with the defendant offering a high / low agreement of $2 million / $250,000. The defense countered with a high / low of $22 million / $12 million.

However, said Protogyrou, “Settlement talks were not productive.”

On appeal, Protogyrou plans to emphasize at least three points. First, he said that surveillance of the plaintiff during the trial was “very damaging.” The surveillance, however, was not allowed into evidence.

Second, the defense will revive the issue of contributory negligence, contending that the woman failed to keep a proper lookout.

Finally, Protogyrou will argue that a neuropsychologist should have been permitted to testify that there was no evidence of a brain injury.

“Those are three areas of appeal that we believe are very strong in this case,” he said.