The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

$3.8 Million Verdict Affirmed Against UPS in Tractor-Trailer Crash Death

Posted on May 26, 2015 by Larry Bodine

8534935113_6a27530ee2_mThe Connecticut Court of Appeals upheld a $3.8 million dollar verdict against UPS, after a driver of its 18-wheeler rear-ended and killed another driver on I-395 in Norwich, Ct.

The UPS tractor-trailer driver Joseph Socha rear-ended George Upton Jr.’s pick-up truck. The impact caused Upton to veer off the road, over the guardrail, through a light post, and down an embankment. Upton was ejected from his pick-up truck and killed.

The administrator of Upton’s estate, Gary Birkhamshaw, filed a wrongful death action, charging negligence and recklessness. Upton’s wife, Julie joined the suit by filing a loss of consortium claim.

The trial jury found for the decedent, awarding the estate a little over $2 million in economic and noneconomic damages. Upton’s wife received a total award of $1.8 million on her loss of consortium claim.

The defendants made several arguments on appeal, including that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of Upton’s excellent driving history.

Upton’s Driving Habits

The following statements made by witnesses were at issue:

  • The decedent was a safe and cautious driver.
  • The decedent drove like a grandma.
  • He made no sudden accelerations.
  • Upton received million mile safe driving awards.
  • Upton received a gold watch for three years of service without any incidents,
  • The decedent received ‘a clean twelve month history’ during a performance review.

 

The defendants claimed the statements were an improper use of character evidence. Generally, under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of a person’s character or character traits are not admissible to prove he acted in conformity with the trait.

Although the trial court improperly admitted some character evidence, it properly admitted habit evidence–evidence of a regular practice–the court stated. However as a whole, the admission of the evidence was not harmful enough to affect the jury’s verdict and warrant a new trial.

The appeals court also highlighted that both parties argued the central issue in the case was the credibility of UPS driver Socha and whether he was negligent and reckless in his driving, despite both parties having good driving records.

Expert Witness Testimony

 The defense also claimed the trial court abused its discretion by allowing one expert witness to give “accident reconstruction” testimony because he was unqualified to provide the testimony.

Alternatively, the defendants believed the testimony of a second expert—an accident reconstruction engineer–was better suited. The engineer testified there was scientific and physical evidence that the decedent switched lanes seconds before the crash, cutting Socha off.

The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the expert’s testimony as to the physical and scientific evidence of a lane change.

The first expert witness had extensive experience in various fields related to truck driving and accident reconstruction. An expert witness may provide testimony based on his opinion and experience.

The court concluded the first expert’s testimony was permissible as long as it was based on reliable and accurate sources of information.

The court ruled It was not necessary for the first expert to reconstruct the accident, because he reviewed all of the accident reports, documents, media, visited the accident scene and researched applicable state laws on passing in the right lane.

The appeals court concluded the lower court did not abuse its discretion by eliminating certain evidence and the jury was presented enough evidence to find for the plaintiff.

This case is Birkhamshaw, Administrator(Estate of George M. Upton, Jr.) v. Joseph Socha Et Al. Case No. AC 36058, Connecticut Court of Appeals.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Blog, Personal Injury

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.