Moss & Colella announces Success in Court of Appeals decision on Complicated no-fault motorcycle Incident Situation - Wanhe Law Associates
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-395,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive

Moss & Colella announces Success in Court of Appeals decision on Complicated no-fault motorcycle Incident Situation

Moss & Colella announces Success in Court of Appeals decision on Complicated no-fault motorcycle Incident Situation

Moss & Colella admits victory in Court of Appeals decision on complicated no-fault motorcycle Incident situation

Court finds”no mistake” in lawyer opinions to prosecution

Media contact: Barbara Fornasiero, EAFocus Communications, 248. 260. 8466;

Southfield, Mich. — January 3, 2019 — David M. Moss, founding partner of Southfield-based civil rights and personal injury law firm Moss & Colella, P.C., declared success following a December 27, 2018 Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Frank Wojcik v AAA. Here is the second success in the complex case, in which David Moss and Moss & Colella associate lawyer Ryan Piekarski previously won a jury trial.


That is really a promise for Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits under the Michigan No-Fault Act. At 10:00 p.m. on July 28, 2013, Plaintiff Frank Wojcik along with his girlfriend as well as passenger Tiffany Clarke, sustained injuries in a bicycle accident when traveling northbound to a two-lane roadway in rural Bay County. Wojcik suffered a closed head injury and had no memory of this crash. Clarke testified that just before Wojcik losing control, a car approached from behind, passed the bicycle, also re-entered the lane before them, inducing Wojcik to eliminate control, fishtail and reverse the bike.

Based on Defendant AAA, Wojcik lost control of the bike when entering a left-hand curve immediately before the intersection, after which the bike ran off the ideal side of the street and crashed into a ditch. Defendant AAA further claimed that alcohol might have been a factor. More to the point, AAA contended that”this was just one motorcycle accident with no additional automobile’involvement. '” The sole”eye-witness” that’d witnessed”headlights” for a split second before the crash confessed a cornfield obscured his view of the right area of the street. The witness said”…[Wojcik] did not even come close to creating the corner, only went directly” (indicating that Wojcik was not able to restrain his bicycle as he entered the curve at the street ). Motor vehicle engagement finally became the centerpiece of this trial as well as the issues presented for appeal.

A Michigan State Trooper came on scene and tortured both eyewitness and Clarke. Three days afterwards, the trooper interviewed Clarke back again. Throughout the meeting, Clarke failed to say the other motor car has been involved in the crash. Afterwards, she swore in an affidavit that”[a] car immediately hauled up behind Frank’s bike and then tried to pass us pulling around to our left. The car cut in front of us inducing [Wojcik] to brake to prevent contact, which led to [him] slipping on the dirt and losing control of the bike.”

About two weeks later, Clarke filed a claim to get no-fault PIP benefits, alleging it had been another car that induced Wojcik to eliminate control. The claim was denied by AAA, prompting Clarke and Wojcik to record their suits. Contemporaneously at another filing, Clarke filed a negligence lawsuit against Wojcik, asserting his actions and omissions caused the injury leading to her injuries.

While both cases were separate, Wojcik filed a motion for summary disposition in their own case on the dilemma of automobile involvement, relying upon Clarke’s affidavit and contending no additional proof effectively countered it. The trial court granted the motion, but on Defendant’s interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that”Clarke’s credibility, in this circumstance, is vital to determining if or not a motor vehicle was involved” The case was remanded for trial and the prosecution finally rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Damages for no-fault PIP benefits and penalty rates were granted and different conclusions for Clarke and Wojcik were entered pursuant to the verdict.

The Court of Appeal Findings:

Following trial, AAA filed an appeal, asserting the trial court erred (1) in precluding defense counsel from impeaching Clarke together with all the allegations she made from Wojcik within her third party litigation, and (2) allowing plaintiff’s counsel to assert that”mere” proof of automobile involvement was enough to nullify the injured motorcyclist to accumulate no-fault advantages.

The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. Depending on AAA’s claim that it had been wrongfully denied an chance to present Clarke’s complaint, the court held,”[w]hile defendant asserts that the exclusion of proof concerning Clarke’s legal claims against Wojcik violated its ability to dispute Clarke’s credibility, especially in regards to if an SUV resulted in the injury giving rise to such appeals, a comprehensive review of this document, especially defense counsel’s cross-examination of Clarke, belies the claim” In terms of AAA’s promise of”egregious” conduct on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel in suggesting a different standard of evidence than that permitted by legislation, the Court found that the jury had been educated properly about the lawenforcement. “Jurors are presumed to follow directions and suspect is so hard-pressed to claim that it had been prejudiced by any alleged mistakes or the alleged mistakes impacted the results of the jury’s verdict.”

Moss & Colella reacts:

David M. Moss, counsel for Wocjik, said the secret to the trial success was witness prep.

“We knew that if the case would fall or rise on the testimony of Clarke; consequently, we needed to make sure she had been thoroughly ready for a strict cross examination,” Moss explained. “While demonstrating Clarke’s credibility was significant, exposing the inexperience of the trooper and the inability of their eye-witness to have seen the injury proved equally as powerful.”

Ryan Piekarski argued that the case before the Court of Appeals.

“From the beginning, the panel was bothered by AAA’s inability to cross-examine Clarke about the allegations in her uncertainty case; nonetheless, I managed to point to many different places in the document at which the defense had the chance to challenge her credibility before the jury,” Piekarski stated. “With an exact recollection of this document, along with having the capability to swiftly cite into the legal criteria and precedent, were essential to turning the panel”

Around Moss & Colella

Launched in 1997, Moss & Colella signifies the victims of personal injury, civil rights violations, discrimination, medical malpractice, and wrongful death. In the event that you or a loved one is looking for a Michigan police brutality lawyer or a Michigan truck accident lawyer, look no more. The company is known as a pioneer in complex tort litigation, such as excessive and lethal pressure, jail death, sexual abuse and harassment, automobile and truck accidents, motorcycle injuries and other severe accident and wrongful death claims. To find out more about the company and its varied regions of practice, see

The article Moss & Colella announces victory in Court of Appeals decision on complex no-fault motorcycle accident case appeared initially on The Moss And Colella Law Firm.

No Comments

Post A Comment