Florida Jury Awards $13K in McCaskey v. Howell Car Crash Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Duval County, Florida jury delivered a verdict in a negligence lawsuit that originated from a motor vehicle collision in late 2022. Plaintiff Janet McCaskey filed suit against Shelby Nicole Howell and Stephen Lee Howell, seeking damages for injuries she sustained in the October 17, 2022, crash. While the original complaint named the insurer, Progressive American Insurance Company, the case that ultimately went before the jury focused squarely on the actions and liability of the individual Defendants, Shelby Nicole Howell, who drove the vehicle, and Stephen Lee Howell, who owned it. The proceedings took place in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, which sits in Duval County, Florida.
Cause
The heart of the lawsuit rested on the claim that Defendant Shelby Nicole Howell negligently operated a motor vehicle when the collision occurred on October 17, 2022. McCaskey contended that Howell failed to operate her vehicle with reasonable care, directly resulting in the crash. The case against co-Defendant Stephen Lee Howell hinged on the legal principle of vicarious liability, asserting that as the vehicle’s owner, he bore responsibility for any negligence committed by the driver, Shelby Howell.
Injury
Following the crash, McCaskey alleged that she had sustained a series of bodily injuries. She claimed these injuries led to pain and suffering, physical impairment, mental anguish, and a reduced capacity for enjoying life. The Plaintiff maintained that these injuries were either permanent or continued to be aggravated by the accident.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff’s complaint specified that the amount of damages sought surpassed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), a figure exclusive of interest, legal costs, and attorney’s fees. This sum was intended to cover all past and future medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, and all non-economic damages associated with her pain and suffering.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
The trial brought together two opposing legal teams who had prepared their respective cases for trial over many months.
Plaintiff(s): Janet McCaskey
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michael P. Moran | Jeffrey James Humphries | Nicholas Edward Concilla
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Mark S. Frisk | John Rody Borg | Robert John Kowalski | Timothy Barton Osbon | Jerry F. Humphries | Mateo Vitomir Jurasic | Omar Abderhman | Rachel Della Delia | Thomas Chu | Adel Abdalla | Joseph Mark Graham | Jason L. Howard | Aaron Bates | Ben Edwards | Andrew Rahaman | Justin Mcginnis | Katherine Mcleod | Mark Mathias | Daniel Mcmahon | Morgan Brett | Gary Kao | Scott M. Kowalski | Christopher Zub | Michael Greene | James E. Freidenstein
Defendant(s): Shelby Nicole Howell | Stephen Lee Howell
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Ben A. Andrews | Stephanie L. Clark
· Experts for Defendant(s): George Stanley | Daryoush Tavanaiepour | Vivek Shekhawat
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Leading up to the trial, both sides established their legal positions through formal Court filings, setting the stage for the Courtroom battle.
Claims
McCaskey’s legal team argued a clear case of negligence against the driver, Shelby Nicole Howell, maintaining that her careless actions directly caused the collision. Furthermore, they established the legal grounds for holding Stephen Lee Howell accountable, asserting that Florida law dictated that a vehicle owner must face liability for injuries caused by those they permitted to drive the vehicle. The claims asserted that Howell’s actions alone served as the complete legal cause of the Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.
Defense
The defense team for the Howells had firmly denied the key allegations of negligence. They introduced several counter-arguments, known as affirmative defenses, which they argued should reduce or eliminate any liability on the Defendants' part.
Comparative Negligence The defense asserted that McCaskey bore some responsibility for the incident, arguing that her own actions or inactions contributed to the collision. If the jury had accepted this argument, any damages awarded would have been reduced by the percentage of fault the jury assigned to the Plaintiff.
Failure to Mitigate Damages The Howells' counsel also maintained that McCaskey failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to minimize her injuries and losses after the crash. This defense sought to reduce the damages to the extent the Plaintiff had failed to alleviate her own suffering.
Failure to Use a Seatbelt A specific argument raised by the defense claimed that McCaskey had been negligent in not using an available and operational seatbelt. They contended that this failure contributed substantially to the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, meaning any damages awarded should be lessened based on the seatbelt’s non-use.
Jury Verdict
On November 7, 2025, the jury returned its verdict in the Duval County Courthouse. After hearing all the evidence, the arguments from counsel, and the judge’s instructions on the law, the twelve members of the jury rendered a decision that settled the question of fault and quantified the financial loss sustained by the Plaintiff.
The jury first addressed the central question of fault and causation. They determined that the negligence of Defendant Shelby Nicole Howell was a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Plaintiff Janet McCaskey. This finding established the necessary liability for the Plaintiff to recover damages.
The jury then proceeded to quantify the damages McCaskey had incurred as a direct result of the crash. They strictly limited the award to expenses the Plaintiff had already accrued, finding no basis for future costs.
Past Medical Expenses: The jury awarded Janet McCaskey Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000) for medical expenses she had incurred in the past.
Future Medical Expenses: The jury awarded Zero Dollars ($0) for any medical expenses to be incurred in the future.
Crucially, the jury then addressed the question of permanent injury, a pivotal factor in determining the extent of non-economic damages in Florida motor vehicle cases. They concluded that Janet McCaskey did not sustain a permanent injury caused by the collision, whether it consisted of permanent scarring or disfigurement or a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability.
Because the jury did not find a permanent injury, they did not proceed to determine the amount of non-economic damages, such as compensation for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
The final judgment, therefore, awarded Janet McCaskey Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000) in total damages, reflecting the jury’s finding that the Defendant caused the accident, but that the Plaintiff’s injuries were limited to past medical expenses and did not rise to the level of permanent impairment.
Court Documents