Bailey v. Duncan: $80,000 Awarded in Orlando Injury Trial
Table of Contents
Case Background
The legal proceedings began when David Michael Bailey filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida following a car accident in 2021. Bailey identified himself as a resident of Orlando and named Kayla Nicole Duncan and her employer, Duncan Mechanical Services, Inc., as the responsible parties. The case moved through the standard pre-trial phases, including the filing of an official answer by the Defendants in early 2023. During this time, the Defendants contested the severity of the claims and raised several legal defenses to protect their interests. The matter remained unresolved until it reached a jury trial in January 2026.
Cause
The accident happened on May 21, 2021, at the intersection of Winter Garden Vineland Road and State Road 50 in Orange County. Bailey sat in his vehicle, which was completely stopped, when Kayla Nicole Duncan drove into him. Because Duncan operated a vehicle owned by Duncan Mechanical Services, Inc. while acting as their employee, Bailey sued both the driver and the company. He argued that Duncan failed to use reasonable care, and under Florida law, the company shared the blame for her actions behind the wheel.
Injury
Bailey alleged that the force of the collision caused him serious and permanent physical harm. He reported that the crash resulted in a permanent loss of bodily functions and significant scarring. His legal team further argued that the incident aggravated physical problems he already had, leading to a permanent disability that hampered his ability to lead a normal life. However, the defense countered these claims by asserting that any pain Bailey felt was the result of conditions he had long before the accident occurred.
Damages
Bailey sought more than $50,000 to cover various financial and personal losses. He requested money for the medical bills he had already paid and for the future treatments he believed he would need. He also asked the Court to compensate him for the wages he lost because he could not work, as well as for his "pain and suffering."
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: David Michael Bailey
Counsel for Plaintiff: Scott J. Liotta | Lanise M. Parker
Experts for Plaintiff: Kevin Oliver Babb | Samuel Thomas Richbourg | Megan Matthews | Amanda Frey | Robert Martinez | Glenn A. Pfaff | Jeremie Karsenti | Jose Pizarro | Fiaz Jaleel | Andre Hobbs | Steven Puccio
Defendant(s): Kayla Nicole Duncan | Duncan Mechanical Services, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jennifer Miller Brooks | Christopher Perini
Experts for Defendant(s): Ravi R. Patel | Geoffrey A. Negin | Marilyn Pacheco
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial centered on whether the Defendants were fully responsible for the crash and how much harm the impact actually caused.
The Plaintiff's Case
Bailey's attorneys argued a three-part theory of liability. First, they claimed Kayla Duncan was personally negligent for hitting a stopped car. Second, they used the "Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine" to hold the company responsible simply because they owned the vehicle and let her drive it. Third, they argued "Respondeat Superior," which makes an employer liable for an employee's mistakes made on the job. They portrayed Bailey as a victim who faced a lifetime of medical needs due to the impact.
The Defense's Rebuttal
The defense team admitted the accident happened but fought against the claim that it caused lasting damage. They utilized "affirmative defenses," suggesting that Bailey might have been partially at fault for the accident himself. They also argued that Bailey failed to "mitigate" his damages, meaning he did not take the right steps to get better or keep his costs down. Their strongest argument was that Bailey's injuries were not permanent and were mostly related to pre-existing health issues.
Jury Verdict
The jury delivered its final decision on January 9, 2026. They reached a consensus on the following points:
Past Medical Expenses The jury reviewed the records of Bailey’s treatments since the accident and determined that his past medical expenses totaled $80,000.00.
Future Medical Expenses and Permanency When the jury reached the question of future care, they awarded $0.00. This decision stemmed from their answer to a critical question on the verdict form: "Did Plaintiff sustain a permanent injury?" The jury checked the box for "NO."
Final Award Because the jury found no permanent injury, Florida law prevented them from awarding money for "non-economic" damages like pain, suffering, or mental anguish. Consequently, the total award for David Michael Bailey was set at $80,000.00, covering only his past medical costs. The verdict was signed by the foreperson and filed in open Court, ending the litigation.
Court Documents