Mark Campbell v. City of Elmira

Mark Campbell v. City of Elmira

Case Name

Mark Campbell v. City of Elmira

Type of Injury

FRACTURE OF DOMINANT ARM AND WRIST

Occupation

self-employed outboard motor repairman

Location

Chemung, NY

Verdict

$500,000 (6/0).

Verdict Amount

$500,000.00

Case Details

X/21-18 MOTOR VEHICLE MOTORCYCLE COLLIDES WITH FIRE TRUCK THAT DROVE THROUGH RED LIGHT OBSTRUCTED VIEW FRACTURE OF DOMINANT ARM AND WRIST

Mark Campbell v. City of Elmira 3498/88 5-day trial Verdict 7/24/92 Judge William N. Ellison, Chemung Supreme

VERDICT: $500,000 (6/0). Breakdown: $21,319 for medical expenses; $ 55,000 for lost earnings; $75,000 for past pain and suffering; $153,381 for future pain and suffering (42 years); $55,000 for past impairment of earning ability; $139,000 for future impairment of earning ability (28 years). Post-trial motions were denied. Notice of Appeal by Deft.

Pltf. Atty: David J. Clegg, Kingston

Deft. Atty: John L. Perticone of Levene, Gouldin & Thompson

Facts: Pltf., a 25-year-old self-employed outboard motor repairman, claimed that on 8/12/86 he was driving his motorcycle when he struck the side of a fire truck which went through a red light. The accident occurred at the intersection of Clemenson Center Pkwy. and Second Ave. in Elmira. Pltf. claimed that he was driving southbound on Clemenson Center Pkwy. and was in the left lane. Pltf. claimed that as he approached the intersection, the light changed to green and that he proceeded through the intersection at 25-30 mph. Pltf. did not see Deft. ‘s fire truck enter the intersection until it was too late to stop and collided with it. Pltf. contended that he did not see the lights or hear the siren because he was wearing a full face motorcycle helmet. Pltf. contended that there was a line of trees and a parking lot filled with trucks and cars on the northwest corner of the intersection which obstructed his view of the oncoming traffic. Pltf. applied the brakes when he saw Deft.’s truck and struck the side of the truck close to the rear tire. Pltf. claimed that he was faced with an emergency situation. He also contended that the driver did not observe traffic and did not look when he entered the intersection.

Deft. contended that it was an emergency vehicle and was entitled to the right-of-way. It contended that the truck had on its flashing lights and siren to warn other drivers. Deft. was responding to a call at a local County jail. Deft. also contended that in order for it to be liable, the driver would have to show reckless disregard for the safety of other drivers. Deft. claimed that there were cars stopped when it approached the intersection. The truck was 200 feet from the intersection when the driver last looked at the light. The driver testified that cars were still stopped at the intersection when he approached and that he proceeded through the intersection at a speed of approximately 10-15 mph. He also testified that he slowed down as he proceeded through the intersection. A fireman sitting in the rear of the truck testified that the driver accelerated as he proceeded through the intersection. Deft. contended that its personnel acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Injuries: comminuted displaced radius and ulnar fracture of the right ( dominant) arm; fractured right wrist. Pltf. had gone back to work in Spring 1987 until Fall 1987 when he underwent surgery for fusion of the wrist. He went back to work May 1988 at limited capacity. Deft. contested that the lost income claim was not valid because Pltf. was working at the time of trial. Demonstrative evidence: photographs; rehabilitative implements; motorcycle helmet. Offer: $40,000; demand: $ 300,000. Jury deliberation: 3? hours. Pltf. Experts: Thomas Kershner, economist, Schenectady; Edmond Provder, rehabilitative medicine, Manhattan; Dr. William Bishop, orth. surg., Elmira; Sandy Robinson, occupational therapist. There was no expert testimony for Deft.

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

What You Need to Know About Documenting Damages in Personal Injury Cases
January 5, 2026
This guide explains everything you need to know in clear and simple terms, including why documentation matters, what to collect, and how it helps with legal support.
Vocational Evaluations for Veterans Disability Claims
December 22, 2025
Learn how vocational evaluations strengthen veterans disability claims, prove unemployability, and improve chances of securing VA compensation benefits. Today
Life Care Planning Expert Witness's Role in Personal Injury Cases
December 1, 2025
This article explains what a life care planner does, how they serve as expert witnesses, and why their role is crucial in personal injury cases in the United States.
Why Earning Capacity Assessments Are Key for Fair Injury Claims
November 17, 2025
Learn why earning capacity assessments are vital for fair personal injury claims, how these vocational assessments are done, across the United States with OAS.
How Vocational Evaluations Affect Divorce and Spousal Support
November 3, 2025
Explore how vocational evaluations influence divorce, alimony, and spousal support. See how OAS experts deliver fair, court-ready assessments nationwide.

CONTACT US