Oneil Walters v. Jermel L. Coates and MMI Mechanical Inc.

Oneil Walters v. Jermel L. Coates and MMI Mechanical Inc.

Case Name

Oneil Walters v. Jermel L. Coates and MMI Mechanical Inc.

Type of Injury

MENISCUS TEAR AND DERANGEMENT OF SPINE’S LUMBAR REGION

Occupation

Mechanic

Location

Bronx, New York

Verdict

During defense counsel’s presentation of his case, the parties negotiated a settlement. The defendants’ insurer agreed to pay $925,000, from a policy that provided $1 million of coverage.

Verdict Amount

$925,000

Case Details

On Jan. 11, 2013, plaintiff O’Neil Walters, 30, a mechanic, was driving on the northbound side of Grand Concourse, near its intersection at East 149th Street, in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx. While he was proceeding through the intersection, his car collided with an eastbound truck that was being driven by Jermel Coates. Walters claimed that he suffered injuries of his back and a knee.

Walters sued Coates and Coates’ employer, MMI Mechanical Inc. Walters alleged that Coates was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Walters further alleged that MMI Mechanical was liable because the accident occurred during Coates’ performance of his job’s duties.

Walters claimed that the collision occurred while he was stopped in traffic. He claimed that the truck struck the left side of his car. He further claimed that Coates was executing a left turn onto the northbound side of Grand Concourse. Left turns were not permitted at the intersection. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Coates was en route to a truck-rental agency located nearby on Grand Concourse. Coates acknowledged that he was traveling to the rental agency, but he claimed that he was not executing a left turn. He claimed that he intended to proceed straight through the intersection.

Coates also claimed that Walters’ car struck the right side of the truck. He suggested that a southbound bus had blocked Walters’ view of the truck. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the location of the vehicular damage supported Walters’ version of the manner in which the accident occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel also claimed that Coates’ testimony contradicted testimony provided by a police officer who responded to the accident.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

Expert reviewing future medical needs in a catastrophic injury case
October 19, 2026
Learn how future care planning helps document medical needs, support damages, and clarify long-term care in catastrophic injury cases.
Attorney reviewing a plaintiff's future care report
October 5, 2026
Learn which reporting mistakes can weaken serious injury cases, from unsupported care needs to poor cost research, outdated records, and unclear expert opinions.
Attorney reviewing a serious injury case
September 21, 2026
Learn what attorneys should look for when choosing a future care expert, including credentials, clinical experience, report quality, and litigation readiness.
Injury case documents and medical records
September 7, 2026
Learn which actions can damage a personal injury case, from delayed treatment to poor documentation. Discover practical ways to protect evidence and support future damages.
Expert reviewing medical records
August 24, 2026
Learn how a medical needs assessment helps identify future care, daily living needs, and functional limits in serious injury cases. Discover what makes the process reliable.

CONTACT US