Drivers of commercial vans who turn left or right across oncoming or crossing traffic face slower acceleration, bigger blind spots, and longer stopping distances than drivers of passenger cars. They need to account for all three.
Safe practice means judging gaps conservatively, managing blind spots, allowing for the van’s weight and momentum, watching for wide swings, and anticipating mistakes by other drivers. A van driver should never try to squeeze through a tight gap in oncoming traffic. The driver should wait for a clear, generous break. Skipping these precautions puts the van driver and everyone else on the road at risk of a crash.
Our client was driving down a city street in Lake Charles when a van coming from the opposite direction made a left turn into a private driveway, directly across his path. He reacted the way most of us would. He swerved. That instinct kept him from hitting the van, but the turn forced him off the road and into a large pole. He came away with severe injuries to his neck, back, and wrist, along with injuries to his shoulders and legs.
Our firm represented him. After extensive treatment that never fully relieved his pain, a Lake Charles jury returned a verdict of more than $2,500,000 in his favor.
Avoiding a collision does not excuse the driver who caused the danger
Many people assume that they have no claim if the other vehicle never touched them. That assumption is wrong. A driver who turns into your path and forces you to take evasive action can be held responsible for the resulting crash, even if the two vehicles never made contact.
These cases, often called “no-contact” accidents, turn on proof. Insurance companies may argue that the injured driver overreacted or simply lost control. Witness statements, surveillance or traffic camera footage, vehicle data, and the layout of the scene can show that the swerve was a reasonable reaction to a real threat.
Commercial vehicles bring added layers of responsibility
The van in this case belonged to an organization, and the driver was using it on the job with the owner’s permission. When a work vehicle causes a crash, the driver may not be the only party responsible. A business can be liable for the conduct of an employee driving on the job. It may also answer for its own decisions about hiring, training, supervision, and entrusting a vehicle to an employee. Commercial vehicles also tend to carry larger insurance policies than personal cars, and that coverage can make a meaningful difference when injuries are serious and treatment is expensive.
Companies and their insurers often move quickly after a crash. They may send investigators to the scene or call the injured person to request a recorded statement. Bringing your own legal team early helps preserve evidence and keeps your words from being used against you later.
Spine injuries can cause pain that ordinary treatment cannot fix
Neck and back injuries from a crash often involve the facet joints. These small joints connect each vertebra to the next and allow the spine to bend and twist. A sudden impact can damage the joints and the tissue around them. The result can be chronic pain that limits movement and makes driving, lifting, or even sleeping difficult.
Our client’s care included two procedures: medial branch blocks and radiofrequency ablation.
Medial branch nerves carry pain signals from the facet joints. In a medial branch block, a doctor uses imaging to guide a needle and inject numbing medication near those nerves. If the patient’s pain drops significantly in the hours that follow, the doctor has strong evidence that a specific joint is causing the problem. The block works mainly as a diagnostic test. Its job is to confirm where the pain comes from, not to provide lasting relief.
Once the blocks identify the problem joint, a doctor may recommend radiofrequency ablation. During this procedure, a needle delivers heat generated by radio waves to the targeted nerve. The heat disrupts the nerve’s ability to send pain signals. Relief can last for months, but nerves can grow back, and many patients need the procedure repeated.
Our client underwent radiofrequency ablations along with injections and therapy. Even so, his pain persisted. That history matters to a jury. Each procedure is a documented step a doctor took to treat a real, identifiable source of pain. A treatment record built on repeated, image-guided procedures gives jurors concrete evidence that the pain is genuine and lasting.
The crash also injured our client’s wrist badly enough to require surgery. Wrist injuries are easy to underestimate. They affect gripping, typing, lifting, and nearly every task at work and at home. Surgery brings its own recovery period and rehabilitation, and it can leave lasting weakness or stiffness. When a wrist injury comes on top of neck and back injuries, few parts of daily life go untouched.
The jury recognized that his medical needs would continue
The jury based its award on the extent of his injuries and his ongoing medical needs. A fair recovery covers more than the bills already paid. It should also account for future treatment, such as repeat procedures, medication, and therapy, along with the effect of chronic pain on a person’s work, activities, and quality of life.
Proving future needs takes careful work. Treating physicians, medical records, and, when appropriate, expert testimony helps a jury understand what care a person will likely need and what that care will cost. Without that evidence, an injured person risks accepting a settlement that runs out long before the pain does.
