Miami Jury Awards $117K in Rear-End Crash Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
The lawsuit arose from a car crash that took place on October 6, 2019, in Miami-Dade County. Christopher Robert Dorsey had been driving his vehicle when another driver, Ari Greenfield, struck him. According to Dorsey, Greenfield had failed to act responsibly behind the wheel and caused the collision that left him with lasting physical injuries and emotional pain.
Dorsey filed his complaint on January 13, 2021, seeking more than $30,000 in damages, which included medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses. The case proceeded in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade, where the matter eventually went to trial before a jury.
Cause that led to the dispute
At the heart of Dorsey’s lawsuit was a negligence claim. He stated that Greenfield had a legal duty to drive carefully and to be mindful of other vehicles on the road. Dorsey alleged that Greenfield had failed to live up to that duty when he failed to keep a proper lookout, didn’t slow down, and didn’t stop his car before crashing into him.
The Plaintiff argued that Greenfield had not just made a simple mistake but had acted in a way that directly caused the crash. Dorsey’s legal team insisted that there were no intervening causes and that, but for Greenfield’s failure to drive responsibly, the accident wouldn’t have happened. According to the complaint, Greenfield’s lack of caution made him fully responsible for the crash and the consequences that followed.
Injury Suffered
Dorsey said he had suffered serious and permanent physical injuries as a direct result of the collision. These injuries, according to the complaint, had required immediate medical care and would continue to affect him into the future. He reported chronic pain, loss of physical ability, and other limitations that disrupted his daily life. He also claimed emotional suffering, mental anguish, and a diminished quality of life.
The impact of the crash extended beyond the physical. Dorsey explained that he lost time from work, missed out on income, and had been forced to make repeated visits to doctors and specialists. His injuries had required him to undergo medical treatment, which he claimed would be necessary for years to come.
Damages Sought
Christopher Dorsey’s damages included compensation for past medical expenses related to treatment from the crash, as well as additional coverage for medical care anticipated in the future. While no damages were assigned for lost wages or reduced earning capacity, the case recognized the considerable physical pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life he had experienced since the accident, along with the suffering he is expected to continue to endure. The damages reflected both his economic hardships and the lasting impact the accident had on his quality of life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
At trial, Dorsey’s side told a straightforward story. He had been following the law, driving normally, when Greenfield came up behind him and crashed into his vehicle. They argued that Greenfield had every opportunity to avoid the collision but didn’t react in time. Whether because of distraction or poor judgment, Dorsey believed Greenfield had completely failed to maintain safe control of his vehicle.
The defense, on the other hand, did not admit liability. Greenfield’s attorneys argued that Dorsey bore some of the blame himself. They claimed he hadn’t worn a seatbelt, that his injuries were not as serious as described, and that some of his damages had been exaggerated. They also argued that the Plaintiff had not submitted all of his medical bills to his health insurance provider and instead chose to sign letters of protection with his medical providers, which they believed unfairly increased the financial exposure of the defense.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Christopher Robert Dorsey
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Afram Malki
· Experts for Plaintiff: Modesto Torres-Sanchez | Roger Ramos
Defendant: Ari Greenfield
· Counsel for Defendant: Rocio Rams |Theresa Caccippio
· Experts for Defendant: Neil Schechter | Kevin Abrams
Key Arguments by Counsel
Dorsey’s attorney, Afram Malki, leaned heavily into the straightforward facts. He described the crash as a textbook example of rear end negligence, where the trailing driver holds primary responsibility. Malki argued that the law was on Dorsey’s side and asked the jury to hold Greenfield accountable.
Greenfield’s attorney, Rocio Rams, countered that the Plaintiff had contributed to his own injuries by not wearing a seatbelt and by inflating the cost of medical treatment. She stressed that Florida’s no fault insurance rules placed limits on when a Plaintiff could recover for pain and suffering, and questioned whether Dorsey’s injuries truly crossed that threshold.
The defense also emphasized that the Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages including his decision not to bill his health insurer for treatment violated principles of fairness and inflated the claim. They pointed to Florida’s collateral source and mitigation laws and insisted that the jury should only consider the discounted value of medical care, not the full amounts charged.
Claims Asserted
The lawsuit focused entirely on negligence. Dorsey claimed that Greenfield had driven carelessly and caused the accident. He maintained that the crash would not have happened if Greenfield had kept a proper lookout, maintained a safe distance, and followed the basic rules of the road.
There were no allegations of recklessness, intentional harm, or other causes of action just a simple, clear cut negligence claim supported by physical injuries and economic damages.
Defense Arguments
Greenfield answered the complaint with a general denial and raised a lengthy list of defenses. He invoked Florida’s Tort Reform Act of 1998, along with several provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Act, arguing that Dorsey’s injuries didn’t meet the statutory threshold needed for pain and suffering recovery.
Greenfield also asserted that Dorsey had failed to minimize his damages, hadn’t submitted medical bills to health insurers, and had chosen instead to proceed under letters of protection. The defense claimed that this strategy deprived them of contractual discounts they otherwise would have received. Greenfield’s team further argued that the medical bills should be reduced to reflect any write offs under insurance contracts or Medicare guidelines.
They also raised procedural defenses tied to setoffs, collateral sources, and PIP (Personal Injury Protection) benefits that had already been paid or were payable.
Jury Verdict
On May 8, 2025, after considering all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favour of Christopher Dorsey. They found that Ari Greenfield’s negligence had directly caused Dorsey’s injuries. The jury also determined that Dorsey had sustained a permanent injury, making him eligible to recover for pain and suffering under Florida law.
· The amount awarded for medical bills- In the past $316,208.96 and in the future $150,000.
· The amount awarded for pain and suffering, disability, physical disfigurement- in the past is 62,000.
They awarded Dorsey $522,208.96 in total damages, which included compensation for both past and future medical expenses, as well as non-economic losses related to physical pain, suffering, and diminished enjoyment of life. They did not award anything for lost wages or future earning capacity, suggesting the jury believed that while the injuries were real, they had not prevented Dorsey from working or earning income.
Court Documents