Initially, a jury ruled in favor of awarding a motorcyclist $14 million for a collision at “walking speed,” but an appellate court later overturned this verdict. The reason was that the victim’s legal team introduced a new expert into the proceedings at the last minute, which radically influenced the jury’s opinion.
Circumstances of the Incident and Subsequent Claims
A motorcyclist named Ian M. was struck by a car at a very low speed. He did not fall, walked to the sidewalk on his own, and left the scene without seeking medical attention. Only the next day did he visit a clinic, complaining of pain in his hip, leg, and foot. The incident occurred back in 2017, but the situation changed dramatically several years later.
The victim later claimed that the accident caused injuries to his neck and groin. The defense in court emphasized that the man continued to engage in active recreation after the incident: snowboarding, rollerblading, and riding a motorcycle.
The Jury Verdict and Its Overturning
Despite the defense’s arguments, a jury in Los Angeles in 2023 awarded the motorcyclist nearly $13.9 million. This amount included about $1.9 million for future medical expenses and a colossal $12 million for past and future suffering. However, this verdict was completely annulled.
The Second District Court of Appeal found serious procedural issues. The motorcyclist’s lawyers introduced a new expert witness, spine surgeon Dr. Thor Gravori, just seven days before the trial began, without coordinating it in advance. This expert recommended several medical procedures costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, which no other specialist had proposed.
The Appellate Court’s Decision
The court noted that there were no signs of a medical emergency, documented worsening of symptoms, or evidence of a new injury. Moreover, according to the case materials, the motorcyclist went rollerblading both the day before and after visiting this expert.
The appellate court also pointed out that Dr. Gravori had previously served as an expert witness in other, unrelated cases where the same motorcyclist’s attorney was the representative.
Based on these facts, the verdict and court costs were overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial.
Summary and Further Developments
Thus, a case that began with a minor collision turned into million-dollar claims but collapsed when the appellate court ruled that the jury should not have heard the most sensational evidence. The motorcyclist now faces a new trial.
This case vividly illustrates how fragile even a multi-million dollar court decision can be if procedural violations were committed during the process. It also raises important questions about the ethics and admissibility of using expert testimony in trials, especially when it appears at the last minute and contradicts all previous findings. Such precedents may influence the approach to preparing similar cases in the future, forcing courts and the legal profession to pay more attention to the timeliness and transparency of evidence presentation.