Reckless DUI Crash: $638K Verdict for Milagros Pereyra
Case Background
This personal injury case arose in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Connecticut, under motor vehicle negligence and recklessness law. The Plaintiff, Milagros Pereyra, filed the suit against Carlos Palencia-Carrera, the driver, and Juan Palencia-Carrera, the vehicle’s owner. Pereyra alleged that the Defendants’ actions caused serious injuries during a nighttime collision. The matter involved statutory violations and vicarious liability based on vehicle ownership.
Events leading to the dispute
The incident occurred on April 9, 2022, along Seaside Avenue in Stamford, Connecticut. Pereyra had been lawfully parked on the street, facing north. Another unoccupied car was parked nearby. At that time, Carlos Palencia-Carrera drove northbound in a vehicle owned by Juan Palencia-Carrera. Without warning, Carlos crashed into the unoccupied vehicle and then struck Pereyra’s parked car. The complaint stated Carlos was driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, operating recklessly, and failing to control his vehicle. He allegedly violated multiple traffic laws, including statutes prohibiting intoxicated driving, speeding, unsafe lane changes, and inattentiveness. Pereyra claimed the Defendant’s reckless conduct caused the multi-car collision and her resulting injuries.
Injuries Suffered
Pereyra sustained a range of injuries. These included neck pain, back pain, cervico-brachial neuralgia, cervical and lumbar radiculitis, left shoulder and arm pain, thoracic sprain/strain, and lumbar curvature abnormalities. She also experienced lumbalgia and broad pain across her spine. The injuries caused both physical and mental suffering. Pereyra stated that some of these injuries were permanent. As a result, she became unable to take part in her usual day-to-day activities, and her quality of life declined.
Damages Sought
Pereyra sought monetary compensation for medical care already received and expected future expenses. She also claimed non-economic damages for physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. For the reckless conduct alleged in Counts II and III, she requested punitive and exemplary damages, as well as double or treble damages under Connecticut General Statutes § 14-295. She argued that Carlos Palencia-Carrera’s conduct showed a conscious disregard for public safety and warranted heightened penalties.
Claims
The lawsuit included four counts. The First Count alleged negligence against Carlos for failing to maintain control, observe surroundings, and avoid a collision. The Second Count claimed common law recklessness, asserting that Carlos drove while knowingly impaired and in a grossly negligent manner. The Third Count cited statutory recklessness under §14-295, based on driving violations including DUI and reckless operation. The Fourth Count invoked vicarious liability against Juan Palencia-Carrera, alleging that he permitted Carlos to drive his vehicle and acted as his principal under Connecticut General Statutes 52-182 and 52-183.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Milagros Pereyra
o Counsel for Plaintiffs: Brian M. Flood
o o Expert for Plaintiffs: Yuting Xiong | Joseph Gambino
Defendants: Carlos Palencia-Carrera| Juan Palencia-Carrera
o Counsel for Defendants: Lewis S. Lerman, Esq.
Defense Arguments
The Defendants, Carlos Palencia-Carrera and Juan Palencia-Carrera, outlined their defense to the claims. They acknowledged some basic facts. For instance, they admitted that Carlos Palencia-Carrera's vehicle was involved in a collision. This collision first involved a parked vehicle owned by Patricia Espinoza. Then, it involved the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff, Milagros Pereyra. However, for many other points the Plaintiff raised, the Defendants stated they lacked enough information to form a belief. As a result, they indicated the Plaintiff needed to prove these allegations. Crucially, the Defendants denied specific serious accusations. These included allegations of reckless, wilful, and/or wanton misconduct by Carlos Palencia-Carrera. They also denied that he violated a specific Connecticut statute concerning reckless disregard for the safety of others. Essentially, their position required the Plaintiff to substantiate the full scope of her claims.
Jury Verdict
The jury delivered a decisive verdict in favour of Milagros Pereyra on March 5, 2025, holding Carlos Palencia-Carrera and Juan Palencia-Carrera accountable for damages. The ruling, which Hon. Riley had accepted, had awarded Pereyra a substantial sum, including punitive and double damages.
The jury had found Carlos Palencia-Carrera's conduct reckless, both under common law principles and through violations of specific statutes. This finding had prompted the court to impose punitive damages, designed to penalise the Defendant for his actions. Additionally, the jury had determined Pereyra was entitled to double damages under applicable statutes.
The jury had awarded Pereyra:
$318,265.00 in economic damages, covering expenses such as medical costs and lost earnings.
$320,000.00 in non-economic damages, compensating for pain and suffering.
The total damages awarded to Milagros Pereyra amounted to $638,265.00.
Court Documents