Rear-End Crash Lawsuit Fails: Jury Rules for Defendant Miami
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Miami-Dade County woman filed a negligence lawsuit after a rear-end collision left her with claimed permanent injuries. The case was heard in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, under Case Number 2019-028155-CA-01. Donna Nasimov sued Evan Fuertes, alleging that his careless driving caused a chain-reaction crash that resulted in severe bodily harm. The lawsuit spanned nearly six years before reaching trial, with the jury delivering its verdict on June 5, 2025.
Cause
The collision occurred on September 14, 2018, on eastbound SW 152nd Street in Miami-Dade County, Florida. According to the complaint filed on September 24, 2019, Nasimov was lawfully and prudently operating her motor vehicle when she stopped in traffic. Fuertes was driving a vehicle behind her. The Plaintiff alleged that Fuertes failed to stop for the halted traffic ahead of him and collided with the rear end of her vehicle. The impact propelled Nasimov's car forward, causing a secondary collision with another vehicle that was stopped in front of her.
Injury
Nasimov claimed she sustained severe and permanent bodily injuries from the crash. The complaint detailed that these injuries caused permanent impairment, disability, and disfigurement. She reported incurring substantial medical costs that continued after the accident and would persist into the future. The Plaintiff also alleged she experienced great pain, suffering, and mental and emotional anguish. She claimed a loss in her capacity to enjoy life and suffered lost earnings and income. The complaint further stated that the collision may have aggravated preexisting conditions and caused her to lose the value of her motor vehicle.
Damages Sought
Nasimov sought damages exceeding fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. She demanded compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of disease or physical defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. The Plaintiff requested a jury trial on all triable issues.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Donna Nasimov
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Adam T. Boumel | Darren J. Rousso | Adam T Boumel
· Experts for Plaintiff: Ross Sherban | Carlos Rojas | Robert D. Martinez | Gerald L. Nickerson | Stefan Prada
Defendant: Evan Fuertes
· Counsel for Defendant: Aileen L. Kluck | Theresa Caccippio
· Experts for Defendant: Jonathan R. Gottlieb | Henry Pevsner | Nancy Fraser Michalski
Claims
The Plaintiff brought a single count of negligence against the Defendant. Nasimov argued that Fuertes committed multiple negligent acts that directly caused the collision and her injuries. She claimed he carelessly and negligently operated his motor vehicle. She alleged he failed to stop for the stopped traffic in front of him. The complaint stated he followed too closely behind her vehicle. The Plaintiff argued he failed to operate his vehicle in a careful and prudent manner under the circumstances. The complaint also reserved the right to identify other acts of negligence through discovery. Nasimov maintained that these negligent acts were the sole, direct, and proximate cause of her severe and permanent physical injuries.
Defense
Fuertes filed his answer and affirmative defenses on February 8, 2021. He admitted that both parties were Miami-Dade County residents and that venue was proper in the county. However, he denied the core allegations of negligence and the claimed injuries, demanding strict proof of these claims. The defense raised seventeen affirmative defenses. The Defendant argued he was entitled to setoffs from personal injury protection benefits and other collateral sources under Florida Statutes Section 768.76. He invoked Florida's comparative fault statute, Section 768.81, arguing that any liability should be apportioned based on his percentage of fault rather than joint and several liability. The defense contended that the Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use an available seatbelt, which contributed to her damages. Fuertes challenged whether Nasimov met Florida's No-Fault threshold requirements under Sections 627.730 through 627.7405, arguing her claims were barred by the tort exemption provision because she failed to demonstrate a threshold-breaking injury. The defense also argued the Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not submitting medical bills to her health insurer and instead executing letters of protection to medical providers. This, the defense claimed, deprived them of contractual discounts available under Goble v. Frohman. The Defendant asserted entitlement to health insurance contractual adjustments and write-offs, arguing only the actual amounts paid should be presented to the jury.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdict on June 5, 2025, ruling in favor of the Defendant, Evan Fuertes.
On the first and most critical question of the verdict form, the jury was asked whether the negligence of Evan Fuertes was a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Donna Nasimov. The jury answered no.
Because the jury found that the Defendant's negligence was not a legal cause of the Plaintiff's claimed damages, the verdict form instructed them not to proceed further. The jury did not reach the questions regarding the amount of medical expenses, whether Nasimov sustained a permanent injury, or the damages for pain and suffering and other non-economic losses. The damages sections of the verdict form remained blank.
The defense verdict meant that Nasimov recovered nothing from her lawsuit. Despite nearly six years of litigation following the September 2018 collision, the jury determined that even if Fuertes was negligent, his conduct was not the legal cause of whatever injuries the Plaintiff claimed to have suffered. This finding effectively ended the case without any monetary award to the Plaintiff.