Jurimatic by Exlitem

Oregon Jury Rules for La Provence in Injury Crash Case

Oregon Jury Rules for La Provence in Injury Crash Case

S
Sohini Chakraborty
September 11, 2025

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case arose from a rear-end collision in Portland on August 20, 2021. Courtney Gwiazdon, a Portland resident, claimed that her car was stopped in traffic on SE Stark Street when a vehicle driven by Nate Golden struck her from behind. Golden was driving a company vehicle owned by La Provence Wholesale, LLC, where he worked. Gwiazdon sued Golden, La Provence Wholesale, and several related business entities, alleging negligence, negligence per se, and employer liability.

While the complaint named multiple corporate Defendants tied to the “La Provence” restaurant and bakery chain, the jury trial ultimately narrowed to La Provence Wholesale, LLC and Nate Golden.

Cause

Gwiazdon’s complaint stated that Golden failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to maintain control of the vehicle, drove carelessly, and crashed into her stopped car. She also alleged he violated Oregon’s careless driving statute, which made his actions negligence per se.

In addition, she claimed the companies behind La Provence failed in their duties as employers by hiring, training, and supervising Golden without enough care. She argued they should have had stronger safety rules for drivers of company vehicles.

Injury

According to the complaint, Gwiazdon’s injuries from the crash went far beyond temporary soreness. She said she experienced whiplash, concussion, and post-concussion syndrome. That brought symptoms like headaches, dizziness, memory lapses, light and sound sensitivity, vision issues, tinnitus, fatigue, and nausea.

She also described lingering neck and hip pain, stiffness, and emotional strain. Gwiazdon told the court that these problems limited her daily activities, disrupted her work, and caused her significant suffering.

Damages

Gwiazdon asked for less than $1 million in total damages. She sought compensation for past and future medical costs, lost wages, and her pain and suffering. She also sought interest on her economic losses.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Courtney Gwiazdon

  • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Drake Aehegma

Defendant(s): La Provence Wholesale, LLC | Nate Golden

  • Counsel for Defendant(s): Patricia A. Brockway

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Claims

Aehegma argued that Golden’s negligence caused the accident. Since he drove a company car while on the job, his employer, La Provence Wholesale, was also responsible. The Plaintiff’s case centered on three claims:

  1. Negligence: Golden failed to drive carefully and avoid hitting a stopped car.

  2. Negligence Per Se: Golden violated Oregon’s careless driving law, making his actions automatically negligent.

  3. Employer Negligence: La Provence companies failed to hire, train, and supervise Golden properly, exposing the public to risk.

Aehegma stressed Gwiazdon’s injuries, her ongoing medical treatment, and her need for future care. He also pointed to her loss of income and reduced quality of life.

Defense

Defense attorney Patricia Brockway admitted that Golden had been driving the company vehicle and hit Gwiazdon’s car. But she contested the extent of responsibility and damages.

The defense argued four key points:

  1. Failure to Mitigate: Gwiazdon may not have done enough to reduce her damages, such as seeking prompt or appropriate care.

  2. Pre-Existing Conditions: Some of Gwiazdon’s health problems might have come from earlier injuries or conditions, not the crash.

  3. Set-Off/Credit: If Gwiazdon received payments from insurance or other sources, those amounts should reduce any award.

  4. Improper Parties: Several business entities named in the lawsuit, such as Mirabelle Inc. and “La Provence et al.,” were not proper Defendants and should not be included.

The defense also denied that Gwiazdon’s injuries were as severe as she claimed, and suggested her pain and suffering were overstated.

Jury Verdict

The case went to a jury in Multnomah County Circuit Court.  The jury on 22nd August 2025, did not find that the Defendants’ negligence caused damages to Gwiazdon. The jury found the verdict in favor of the Defendants and the Plaintiff didn’t receive any compensation.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com

Tags

Employer Liability
Rear-end Collision
Negligence Defense

About the Author

SC
Sohini Chakraborty
Editor
Sohini Chakraborty is a law graduate, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies. She delivers well-structured legal summaries.