Walter Carrick v. State of New York

Walter Carrick v. State of New York

Case Name

Walter Carrick v. State of New York

Type of Injury

MASSIVE INJURIES INCLUDING HEAD TRAUMA AND EXTENSIVE FRACTURES

Location

NY

Verdict

$5,160,157, reduced to $1,806,055 for 65% comparative negligence of Clmt.

Verdict Amount

$1,806,055.00

Case Details

XIII/28-23 MOTOR VEHICLE DAMAGES TRIAL MASSIVE INJURIES INCLUDING HEAD TRAUMA AND EXTENSIVE FRACTURES SEAT BELT DEFENSE

Walter Carrick v. State of New York Claim No. 78204 12-Page Decision Filed 12/13/95 Judge Albert A. Blinder, Court of Claims, Manhattan

DECISION: $5,160,157, reduced to $1,806,055 for 65% comparative negligence of Clmt. Breakdown: $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering; $1, 500,000 for future pain and suffering; $98,084 for past medical expenses; $ 63,500 for future medical expenses; $227,530 for past lost earnings; $1, 982,546 for future lost earnings. The court deducted $198,255 for Clmt.’s failure to mitigate damages, and $13,248 for collateral source payments.

Clmt. Atty: Edwin N. Weidman of Richard J. Katz, Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Kenneth F. Keutmann, Asst. Atty. General

Facts: On 4/23/87, Clmt., then age 27, was involved in a serious accident, for which the State of New York was previously found 35% liable. This trial concerned damages only.

Injuries: closed head trauma resulting in various central nervous system problems; 27 fractures including multiple facial fractures and the loss of nine teeth, multiple fractures of the right hand and wrist, fractured right ankle, left foot, and vertebra. Clmt. was hospitalized for 2 months and was on a ventilator for much of that time. The head trauma, although leaving his gross intellectual powers intact, impaired his memory and concentration to a degree that he can no longer hold employment or pursue hobbies such as reading, music, or athletic activities. He suffered double vision and has leg shortening of 1 inch on one side. His vocal cords were injured as a result of being on a ventilator for a long period of time, leaving him with a hoarse voice that is abnormally low in volume. He faces dental implant procedures that will require 2 years to complete and are necessary to permit Clmt. to eat normally. He also suffered the loss of physical strength and normal movement in the right arm and hand.

Clmt. testified that he averaged approximately $400 per week as a salaried employee. The court, however, based its projections for future lost earnings on statistical earnings of other white males with Clmt.’s education (he left high school in his senior year). The court reduced his earnings, based on evidence that Clmt. had failed to attempt to mitigate damages by seeking employment rehabilitation. Based on testimony of Clmt. ‘s vocational rehabilitation therapist, the court found that Clmt.’s potential was limited, and reduced that element of damages by only 10%. It was conceded that Clmt. was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Judge Blinder found, however, that he would not reduce damages based on that factor. Both experts testified that a seat belt will not prevent injury if the integrity of the passenger compartment is so compromised that portions of the damaged vehicle, or any outside object, come into contact with, crush, or pierce the bodies of the occupants. Clmt. Experts: John Moore, seat belt expert, Albany; Dr. Conrad Berenson, Ph.D., economist, Woodbury; Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan. Deft. Experts: Dr. James Pugh, seat belt expert, Inter-City Testing, Mineola; Dr. Morris Ehrenreich, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan.

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

The Role of a Vocational Expert in Determining Spousal Support
October 6, 2025
In this article, we’ll explain what a vocational expert does, why their role is important in vocational evaluation for divorce & matrimonial cases. Call us now
Life Care Planning Due To Medical Malpractice
September 22, 2025
Discover how life care planning works, why it matters in medical malpractice cases, and how it benefits both patients and the legal system. Contact OAS Today!
Demonstrative Evidence in Vocational Assessments
September 1, 2025
In this article, we’ll explore what demonstrative evidence is, why it matters in vocational assessments, and how it can make complex information easier.
Wrongful Death Case
August 18, 2025
Learn how a vocational evaluation for wrongful death cases can help calculate financial loss, strengthen your claim, and secure fair compensation. Call us Today
Vocational Evaluations Impact Personal Injury Settlements
August 4, 2025
In this blog post, we’ll explain what a vocational evaluation is, how it helps in personal injury settlements. Contact our Vocational expert for evaluation today

CONTACT US