Ashley E. Eaddy vs. Antonio F. Gatlin II

Case Background

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff ·Ashley E. Eaddy filed a Car accident lawsuit in the Pennsylvania State, Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County (Case number: AR-22-002227 ). Judge Alan D. Hertzberg presided over the case.

Cause

On December 31, 2021, Ashley E. Eaddy, a resident of 7841 Thon Avenue, Verona, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was driving a 2020 Honda HRV. She approached the intersection of Gass Run Road and Route 885 in Allegheny County and stopped at a red light. After her traffic signal turned green, Eaddy began turning left, believing she had the right of way. At the same time, Antonio F. Gatlin II, who lived at 1311 Sarah Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was driving on State Route 885. Despite facing a red light, Gatlin allegedly failed to stop and went through the intersection, colliding with Eaddy’s vehicle.

Injuries

As a direct result of the collision, Eaddy suffered severe physical injuries and acute pain throughout her body. She also experienced significant mental anguish and humiliation. Her injuries required immediate medical attention and could need ongoing treatment. The complaint suggests her injuries may have lasting effects, impacting her quality of life for an indefinite period.

Damages

Eaddy’s complaint emphasized her full tort coverage, allowing her to seek compensation for pain and suffering along with economic damages. She sought damages not exceeding $50,000, including non-economic and punitive damages. The case was filed as a civil action for arbitration, meaning it would be heard by a board of arbitrators instead of going to a jury trial.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Ashley E. Eaddy
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Eric J Randolph
  • Defendant(s):Antonio F. Gatlin II
    • Counsel for Defendants: Kristina Cahill

Claims

Eaddy filed Car Accident lawsuit against Gatlin  citing negligence. Her complaint outlined the following allegations of negligence against Gatlin:

  • Failure to properly operate and control his vehicle
  • Lack of attentiveness
  • Failure to take evasive action
  • Neglecting to exercise due care
  • Failure to maintain a proper lookout for other vehicles and signals
  • Driving at an excessive speed
  • Running a red light

Eaddy maintained that the accident was entirely due to Gatlin’s negligence, with no contributory fault on her part.

Defense

In his response, Gatlin admitted the basic facts of the incident, including the date, location, and the collision. However, he denied running a red light. He challenged Eaddy’s negligence claims, stating they were legal conclusions requiring no response. He also demanded strict proof of her alleged injuries and damages at trial, claiming insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the truth of these claims.

In his New Matter, Gatlin raised several affirmative defenses. He argued that Eaddy’s claims might be barred or limited by applicable insurance policies and the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. He claimed there was no proximate cause between his actions and Eaddy’s alleged injuries and suggested that some of her injuries may have resulted from pre-existing or unrelated conditions. Gatlin demanded a jury trial and a judgment in his favor, questioning Eaddy’s account of the accident, particularly the traffic signal violation, and seeking to limit his liability.

Jury Verdict

On September 11, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in a Car accident lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request