Hockensmith v. Escobar

Case Background

Mark Hockensmith filed an auto negligence case against Maricler Escobar after a motor vehicle accident. Judge Thomas Wingate presided over the case. [Case number: 17-849]

Cause

On September 19, 2016, 58-year-old Mark Hockensmith was driving on Hanly Lane near Frankfort when the incident occurred. Maricler Escobar, coming from a stop sign on a less busy road, pulled into his path. Hockensmith noticed her vehicle approaching but was unable to avoid the collision. The police arrived shortly after and filed a report. There were no serious injuries reported at the scene.

Injury

Since the incident, Hockensmith received treatment for soft-tissue injuries and the exacerbation of his pre-existing degenerative conditions.

Damages

Hockensmith’s medical expenses totaled $4,403, although these were not presented during the trial. His only claimed damages were his pain and suffering. He sought $50,000 in compensation for pain and suffering.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Mark Hockensmith
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): W. Eric Branco
  • Defendant(s): Maricler Escobar
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Joshua J. Leckrone | Ryan M. Glass

Claims

In this auto negligence lawsuit, Hockensmith sought damages from Escobar for the injuries allegedly caused because of the collision.

Defense

Escobar argued that Hockensmith had not suffered a permanent injury or incurred at least $1,000 in necessary medical expenses. If she could prove this, it would serve as a complete bar to Hockensmith’s claim for compensatory damages. In support of this defense, Escobar referenced Grossfeld’s findings, which acknowledged some temporary injury but concluded that it was not permanent. Furthermore, the defense challenged liability by questioning Hockensmith’s speed and lookout at the time of the accident.

Jury Verdict

The case was tried in Frankfort over two days. On September 18, 2024, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defense regarding the $1,000 in medical expenses. This decision was made because there was no evidence showing that these expenses had been incurred.

The jury then deliberated on the threshold issue of whether Hockensmith had sustained a permanent injury. The threshold issue refers to whether the Plaintiff meets the minimum requirements for pursuing certain types of damages, such as medical expenses or permanent injury.

Since the medical expenses were excluded, the jury ruled in favor of Escobar on this question. As a result, the jury did not address issues of liability, apportionment, or damages.

Court Documents:

Available upon request