Multi-Million Dollar Brain Injury Verdict Overturned
.jpg)
A sharply divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently overturned the nearly $3 million verdict a Cumberland County jury awarded last year to a young man with a brain injury.
Tolliver v. Maine Department of Transportation, 2008 ME 83, (May 13, 2008).
Lucas Tolliver, whose blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit for motorists, was struck and severely injured by a car one night while he was walking down Route 302 in Casco, Maine. The roadway where the accident took place was under construction and had been recently paved by the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). However, no lines had yet been painted to mark the breakdown lane.
Lucas’ father and sole guardian sued the driver and MDOT, claiming MDOT had been negligent in its delay of the road striping. At trial, Laurent Lavigne, a civil engineer, who was an expert witness for Lucas, stated that striping should take place soon after the paving is complete. He further testified that lack of striping for a breakdown lane was hazardous for both drivers and pedestrians and was a substantial contributing factor in causing the accident.
On appeal, MDOT argued that it could not be sued under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), and even if it was subject to a lawsuit, Mr. Lavigne’s testimony was improper.
The jury decided that MDOT was not immune from the lawsuit under the MTCA, however, what the Law Court did find objectionable was the testimony by Mr. Lavigne. They noted he was not an expert in accident reconstruction and was not qualified to state that the lack of a line marking the breakdown lane actually caused the accident. They found that the trial court’s admission of Mr. Lavigne’s testimony was more than “harmless error” because it swayed the judgment of the jury. Finding that Lucas had not presented sufficient additional evidence to support its theory that the lack of striping caused the accident, the Law Court vacated the verdict and entered judgment in favor of MDOT.
Given the lengthy and passionate opinions issued by various members of the Law Court, it's clear that this was a tough case for the court to decide. On one hand, whenever possible, the Law Court lets jury verdicts stand in deference to this hallmark of our legal system. On the other hand, the Law Court is generally reluctant to expand the MTCA to allow exceptions to governmental immunity. Here, they “split the baby,” as it were, allowing the suit to go forward under the MTCA while overturning the jury’s verdict based on evidentiary issues.
While this case may have certainly set the precedent for MDOT to be on the hook for future accidents caused by lack of road striping, it ultimately left Lucas Tolliver with a crippling brain injury and no money for his support.
