Hartford Jury Awards Cyclist Arthur Mulhern Damages in Crash Against Motorist
Table of Contents
Case Background
On the morning of January 14, 2025, a collision happened between a cyclist, Arthur Mulhern, and a motorist, Frederick Petersen, in Hartford. Mulhern was riding his bicycle when he entered the roadway. Petersen was driving towards him when the crash occurred. The accident caused serious injuries to Mulhern, who filed a complaint seeking compensation for medical costs, future medical treatments, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of quality of life. The case went to trial, where both sides gave very different accounts of what happened.
The cause that led to the dispute
Mulhern claimed Petersen acted negligently. According to the complaint, Petersen failed to slow down, ignored traffic signals, and didn’t pay enough attention to the cyclist. Mulhern said Petersen failed to swerve or stop in time and caused the collision.
Petersen disagreed. In his answer, he argued that Mulhern caused the accident by riding from the curbside suddenly, making a sharp turn, or entering the path of his car when it was too late for him to react. Petersen stated that Mulhern violated traffic rules, failed to signal his turn, didn’t yield to the car, and acted recklessly and carelessly.
Injury
Mulhern suffered serious injuries from the crash. Medical records confirmed that he suffered trauma to his body, including long‑term pain and damage that would affect him for years. He required treatment from specialists and would continue to need medical attention well into the future.
Damages
The court heard evidence about the financial and personal toll the accident caused. Medical staff confirmed Mulhern required expensive treatments and therapy. They stated he had lost income due to his injuries and would be unable to work to the same level he had before. The evidence revealed that he lived with daily discomfort and that the accident impacted every part of his life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Throughout the trial, both sides presented their versions of events.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Arthur Mulhern
· Counsel for Plaintiff: John Houlihan| Riscassi & Davis
Defendant: Frederick Petersen
· Counsel for Defendant: Ronald Lindlauf
Key Arguments by Counsel
Mulhern’s lawyers argued that Petersen acted carelessly and violated basic traffic laws. They stated that the accident could have been avoided if Petersen had been vigilant and responded properly. They presented witness testimony and medical evidence to show that Mulhern acted within the limits of the law and that Petersen was at fault.
Petersen’s lawyers responded by stating that Mulhern had ignored traffic rules and caused the crash. They argued that the cyclist failed to signal, crossed improperly, and acted unpredictably. According to the defense, Petersen acted reasonably and tried to prevent the collision.
Claims Asserted
Mulhern sued for medical costs, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and long‑term impacts from the accident. He argued that the accident caused permanent harm that required ongoing medical attention.
Defense Argument
Petersen argued that Mulhern acted negligently by entering the roadway suddenly, failing to yield, making an improper turn, and ignoring traffic rules. He stated that any damages suffered by Mulhern came from his own careless behaviour and that the court should reduce or bar recovery.
Jury Verdict
After weighing both sides, the jury ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, Arthur Mulhern. They awarded damages for medical costs, long‑term treatments, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. The jury decided that Petersen bore the majority of the responsibility for the collision. The verdict confirmed that Mulhern suffered serious, long‑lasting injuries due to the accident and granted compensation that reflected the significant toll it had taken on his life.
Court Documents