Faulty Jury Instructions Means New Trial on Liability of Motor Vehicle Driver in Motorcycle Accident

In the case of Doornbos v. Wehrle, the Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle while travelling westbound in the left lane of a four-lane highway. The Defendant, who was facing the westbound lanes while stopped at a shopping center exit, was in the middle of crossing both westbound lanes in order to turn left onto the eastbound lanes when she struck the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was sent airborne and wound up with a broken back and multiple other fractures, requiring a bone graft as part of his medical care.

At trial, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant crossed the road negligently and struck him with the front of her car in the left lane. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was speeding and driving in the center turn lane when the accident occurred. The Plaintiff had the testimony of three witnesses and a police officer, while the Defendant had a cell phone picture of her car resting in the center lane.

The jury came back with an award for the plaintiff over $2.6 million.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that the trial judge erred when giving instructions to the jury. The judge had given the jury instructions about traffic violations, such as the proper way to make a left-hand turn, that the jury could use to infer the Defendant violated traffic laws and was therefore negligent and responsible for causing the accident. The judge did not give any instructions that could have implied the Plaintiff was also negligent or violating any traffic laws, such as by speeding or riding in the left-hand lane instead of keeping to the right. The judge also did not instruct the jury on what to do with the instructions on moving violations, such as whether they meant the Defendant was per se negligent or if they only tended to imply negligence.

The appellate court decided that the instructions given to the jury about the Defendant’s potential moving violations, along with a lack of instructions on how to interpret or use that information, may have unfairly biased the jury toward concluding that the Defendant was negligent on the basis of traffic violations alone. The appeals court ordered a new trial, but only on the issue of liability. Assuming the jury in the new trial comes back in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive the $2.6 million without having to prove his damages all over again.