Christopher Andino v. API Inc. and Arthur Alexander

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff(s):Christopher Andino
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Austin Berescik-Johns | Austin B Law Office of LLC
  • Defendant(s): A P I Inc.| Arthur Alexander
    • Counsel for Defendants: Gasser Law Firm LLC| Edward W. Gasser

 Verdict Information

  • Verdict Date: May 8, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to Plaintiff: $0 (Verdict for Defendant)

About the case


On or around November 11, 2020, at approximately 5:00 pm, Christopher Andino owned and operated a 2003 Mazda automobile. He drove westbound on Cedar Street, a public roadway in the town of Newington, Connecticut. Andino’s vehicle approached and entered the intersection of Cedar Street and Fenn Road. At the same time and location, Arthur Alexander operated a 2019 Toyota SUV owned by A P I Inc. Alexander traveled eastbound on Cedar Street in the opposite direction of Andino.

As Andino’s vehicle properly proceeded straight through the intersection, Alexander suddenly and negligently turned his SUV to the left in an attempt to turn onto Fenn Road. In doing so, Alexander violated Connecticut General Statutes § 14-242(e), which requires yielding the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully approaching and within the intersection. Alexander failed to yield to Andino’s vehicle, which had the right-of-way.

Alexander’s left turn maneuver directly put his vehicle into the path of Andino’s oncoming car, resulting in a violent collision between the two vehicles within the intersection.

Additionally, Alexander operated his SUV at an excessive, unreasonable speed for the conditions present at that intersection, violating § 14-218a. Factors like traffic conditions, road geometry, and weather conditions necessitated a slower speed, which Alexander negligently exceeded.

Alexander also failed to maintain proper control of his vehicle and drove in an overall unsafe manner leading up to the collision. Despite having the ability to take evasive actions like braking or swerving to avoid the collision, per § 14-80h requiring properly functioning brakes, Alexander neglected to take any such preventive measures. He also failed to sound the SUV’s horn or provide any other warning of the impending crash to Andino.


From the violent collision caused by Alexander’s negligence, Andino sustained several significant injuries. He suffered strains and sprains in the muscles of his neck, resulting in neck pain and limited mobility. The impact also caused injury to his chest area, leading to chest pains. Beyond the physical injuries, Andino endured overall physical pain and discomfort from the trauma of the forceful crash.

In addition to his physical injuries, Andino experienced emotional distress and mental anguish in the aftermath. The incident left him feeling frustrated, anxious, and upset from having to deal with the injuries and their effects on his daily life. His emotional well-being suffered.

The injuries required extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation, resulting in substantial economic losses for Andino. He incurred costly medical bills for emergency care immediately after the crash, as well as ongoing treatment expenses. This included hospitalizations, diagnostic tests like X-rays, physical therapy sessions, and prescription medications needed to treat his injuries.

Andino’s injuries prevented him from carrying out and enjoying his normal daily activities and responsibilities. The pain, limitations on his mobility, and other effects of his injuries caused a diminished quality of life and an inability to function fully, resulting in a temporary or permanent disability.

Furthermore, the injuries forced Andino to miss work and time away from his job. This resulted in lost wages and income that he depended on to support himself and his family. The lost earnings, both past and future, comprised a significant financial loss stemming from the crash.


In his legal complaint, Christopher Andino sought multiple forms of relief from the Court as the plaintiff. First and foremost, he claimed entitlement to monetary damages to compensate him for the injuries, losses, and harm he suffered as a result of the negligent vehicular collision caused by Arthur Alexander. The amount of these compensatory damages demanded fell within the jurisdictional limits of the Court hearing the case. In addition to compensatory damages, Andino also claimed and requested that the Court award him reimbursement for the allowable costs he incurred related to bringing and pursuing the lawsuit itself. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claims encompassed a request for any other relief that the Court deemed appropriate and permissible under principles of law and equity given the circumstances.

Jury Verdict

The jury found Christopher Andino 70% liable for the incident, which led to a verdict in favor of the defendants, Arthur Alexander and API Inc. They determined Arthur Alexander was 30% liable.

Court Documents: