Schmidy’s Machinery Cleared in Connecticut Highway Collision Lawsuit
Case Background
Janny Urena-Colon filed a lawsuit against Schmidy’s Machinery Company in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut. The return date was February 22, 2022. The case involved a motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 10, 2020, around 6:33 p.m. The incident took place on Interstate 84 in Waterbury, Connecticut. At the time, William Mileham operated a vehicle owned by Schmidy’s Machinery Company.
Cause
Janny Urena-Colon drove westbound on Interstate 84 in the right lane. Without warning, a vehicle owned by Schmidy’s and driven by William Mileham collided with her car. The crash caused a multi-vehicle collision and involved a concrete barrier. Mileham operated the vehicle as an agent of Schmidy’s. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted vicarious liability under Connecticut General Statute § 52-183. She argued that Schmidy’s bore responsibility for Mileham’s negligence during the incident.
Injury
The crash resulted in multiple injuries to the plaintiff. She experienced headaches, neck and back pain, and upper extremity radiculopathy. She also suffered shoulder pain, chest and hip contusions, and pain in her left leg. These injuries disrupted her physical well-being and daily life. Consequently, she could not participate in normal activities. The physical and emotional effects remained significant. Medical treatment became necessary, and ongoing care appeared likely.
Damages
Janny Urena-Colon sought monetary compensation exceeding $15,000, excluding interest and costs. She requested damages for medical expenses, property loss, and physical injuries. Her vehicle sustained damage in the crash, adding to financial strain. Furthermore, she pursued compensation for pain and suffering. Emotional distress also formed part of her claim. As a result, the complaint centered on both economic and non-economic losses stemming from the incident.
Key Arguments and proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Janny Urena-Colon
Counsel for Plaintiff: Brian M. Flood, The Flood Law Firm, LLC
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Arpad Fejos | Sandeep Johar | David Forshaw | Arpad Fejos
Defendants: William Mileham | Schmidy’s Machinery Company
Counsel for Defendants: Attorneys from Conway Stoughton LLC
Expert Witness for Defendants: John Zolock | Jeffrey T. Pravda
Claims
Negligence and Vicarious Liability
Schmidy’s Machinery Company owned the vehicle involved in the crash. William Mileham operated the vehicle as Schmidy’s agent. The Plaintiff alleged that Mileham drove negligently, colliding with the Plaintiff’s vehicle without warning and causing a multi-vehicle crash. Schmidy’s bore legal responsibility for his actions under Connecticut General Statute § 52-183. The Plaintiff asserted that Schmidy’s failed in its duty to operate and maintain its vehicle safely.
The Plaintiff claimed that the vehicle was operated with permission, and the collision occurred within the scope of Mileham’s employment. Therefore, the company was vicariously liable for the damages and injuries caused by its employee’s negligent driving.
Physical and Emotional Injuries
The collision inflicted serious injuries on the Plaintiff, including cervical and lumbar strain, joint dysfunction, contusions, and radiculopathy. She endured pain in her head, neck, shoulders, hip, and legs. These injuries limited her ability to engage in normal activities. She also suffered emotional distress and physical discomfort, which continued beyond the immediate aftermath of the crash.
Property Damage and Economic Loss
The Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in the crash, resulting in financial loss. She incurred medical expenses due to the injuries. These costs were ongoing and likely to continue. Additionally, she lost the ability to carry out daily tasks, contributing to further economic harm.
Legal Costs
Because Schmidy’s denied liability, the Plaintiff pursued legal action to seek redress. As a result, she incurred attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. She requested the court award compensation for these costs, along with pre and post-judgment interest.
Defense
William Mileham denied responsibility for the collision and rejected all key allegations of negligence. He claimed insufficient knowledge to confirm or deny most factual assertions and left the Plaintiff to prove them. He specifically denied operating the vehicle negligently.
Schmidy’s Machinery Company adopted Mileham’s responses and admitted ownership of the vehicle and Mileham’s operation of it as an agent. However, the company denied knowledge of the Plaintiff’s injuries and asserted no liability beyond what could be legally proven.
Both Defendants asserted that any injuries the Plaintiff sustained were caused by her own negligence. They argued she drove at an excessive speed and failed to maintain a proper lookout. She did not use reasonable care or attention, turned or moved improperly, and changed lanes unsafely, actions they claimed violated several Connecticut traffic statutes.
Jury Verdict
On March 7, 2025, the Jury found in favor of the Defendant, Schmidy’s Machinery Company, rejecting the negligence and vicarious liability claims brought by Plaintiff Janny Urena-Colon. As a result, the Court entered judgment for the Defendant, awarding no damages to the Plaintiff.