News about Firm Litigation
NEWS ABOUT VANDEVEER
NICO VESPRINI AND ANDREW BARRETT WIN TRIAL FOR CLIENT IN MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IN AUTO v. PEDESTRIAN CASE
Vesprini and Andrew Barrett recently received a defense verdict of
“No Cause of Action” in an automobile negligence trial in
Macomb County Circuit Court.
a pedestrian who was walking through a parking lot of a shopping
center, alleged that Defendant struck her, causing injury.
Plaintiff alleged Defendant was negligent in the operation of her
vehicle through the parking lot, and should have been able to avoid the
accident. As a result of the incident Plaintiff alleged she
suffered various injuries, including a torn meniscus in the knee
resulting in surgery, ongoing pain, and an inability to partake in
multiple social activities. Plaintiff claimed her injuries were a
serious impairment of an important body function and sought $750,000 in
damages from the jury.
testified that she used due care and caution while driving in the
parking lot and was not negligent in causing the accident.
Further, Nico and Andy presented evidence, including medical testimony
from an orthopedic surgeon and neurologist, that to the extent
Plaintiff alleged injuries from the accident, the conditions were
pre-existing in nature. In turn, Nico and Andy argued that
Plaintiff did not meet the “serious impairment” threshold
and her general ability to lead her normal life had not been affected.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury agreed with Defendant, and found that she was not negligent in causing the accident.
VESPRINI WINS DISMISSAL OF WAGE LOSS CLAIM
filed a claim for first party no-fault benefits against his automobile
insurance carrier. In part, Plaintiff’s claim was for lost
wages. Plaintiff was unemployed for a number of years before the
accident, but alleged the week before the accident he was offered
employment with a construction company. Plaintiff alleged that if
he was not injured in the accident, he would have been employed working
full time for the construction company. Prior to litigation,
Plaintiff provided his insurance carrier with a letter from the owner
of the construction company as “proof” of his potential
During the course of litigation, Nicolas
subpoenaed Plaintiff’s alleged employer, the owner of the
construction company, for deposition. As a result of the
deposition testimony elicited, Nico filed a motion to have
Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages dismissed. Nico argued
that despite the letter, there was no offer of employment made to
Plaintiff and that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden that there was
work available at the construction company for Plaintiff to perform,
regardless of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Nico further
argued that the “proofs” submitted by Plaintiff were
insufficient and failed to meet the standard under the Michigan
No-Fault Act to recover lost wages.
After briefing and oral argument, the Court agreed with Nico and
dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages.