Case Background
The case arose from a collision between a bicyclist and a motorist on July 7, 2021, in Essex, Connecticut. Mark C. Diebolt, a competitive triathlete and official member of Team USA, had been riding his bicycle north on Route 154, approaching the intersection with South Cove Lane. The road descended sharply toward the intersection. South Cove Lane, connected to Route 154 from the east.
As Diebolt approached the intersection, a GMC Yukon Denali driven by Keith B. Neilson moved forward from South Cove Lane into the roadway. Neilson had been looking to his right to check traffic, advancing past vegetation that obscured his view. Diebolt saw the SUV enter his path and braked hard, but he collided with the vehicle’s driver-side front corner. The force threw him over the handlebars, onto the windshield, and then to the pavement.
Cause
Diebolt claimed the crash happened because Neilson had failed to yield the right of way and had moved into the main road without ensuring it was safe. He pointed to multiple Connecticut traffic laws that, in his view, Neilson had violated.
One central point in his complaint was that Route 154 is a state-designated bicycle route under Connecticut’s “Share the Road” program. Signs along the route warned motorists to expect cyclists. Diebolt argued that Neilson, who lived near the intersection, knew the area well and should have expected bicycle traffic.
The complaint also alleged that Neilson had failed to keep a proper lookout, had not stopped at the designated stop line, and had moved his vehicle into the cyclist’s path when it was unsafe to do so. According to Diebolt, this combination of errors caused the crash.
Neilson, however, denied that he was at fault. He claimed that Diebolt’s own actions caused or contributed to the collision. His legal filings argued that Diebolt had been riding too fast for the downhill conditions, had failed to keep to the proper lane, and had been in a racing posture that limited his forward view. Neilson also said Diebolt had been engaging in triathlon race training on a public road with intersecting streets, which he called unsafe.
Injury
The crash caused multiple serious injuries. Diebolt sustained nondisplaced fractures of the L1 through L4 transverse processes in his back, fractures of his right ankle, tibia, and fibula, rib fractures with lung contusions, nerve and muscle damage to his back, and injuries to his right hand. He experienced significant pain, restricted movement, and lasting disability.
Damages
Diebolt sought compensation for both economic and non-economic losses.
Economic damages included past and future medical expenses, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, and loss of ability to travel for work. As a professional in a field that involved frequent travel and physical activity, these losses affected his career.
Non-economic damages covered pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, disability, and anxiety over future medical procedures. He argued that the accident had changed not only his physical condition but also his quality of life.
KEY ARGUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS:
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
• Plaintiff(s): Mark C Diebolt
• Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Timothy Brignole
• Expert for Plaintiff(s): John Marino | William A. Vliet | Matthew D. Riedel | Daniel Rubio | William T. Lynders | Dirk C. Johnson | Amy Rice
• Defendant(s): Keith B Neilson
• Counsel for Defendant(s): Peter Eugene Garvey
• Expert for Defendant(s): Timothy Joganich | Scott Bissell
Claims
The lawsuit contained two counts: negligence and recklessness.
In the negligence claim, Diebolt alleged that Neilson failed to grant the right of way, failed to keep a proper lookout, and violated specific Connecticut statutes on safe turning and stopping. He emphasized that Neilson had moved into his path without ensuring it was clear and safe.
The recklessness claim argued that Neilson knew Route 154 was a designated bicycle route and still acted with reckless disregard for the safety of cyclists. Diebolt alleged that Neilson had pulled out into the roadway without adequate visibility, had ignored warning signs, and had operated his vehicle without considering the presence of bicycles.
Defense
Neilson argued Diebolt’s injuries resulted from his own negligence and reckless conduct. The defense claimed Diebolt rode too fast for the downhill slope, failed to keep to the right lane, engaged in unsafe triathlon training on a public road, and used racing equipment unsuitable for road use. They also suggested the State of Connecticut’s road design and conditions were an intervening cause.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in January 2025 in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London. The jury weighed the testimony, physical evidence, and legal arguments from both sides.
On January 24, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Diebolt. They assigned 100% of the liability to Neilson and 0% to Diebolt. The finding meant that the jury accepted Diebolt’s account of events and rejected the defense’s claims of comparative fault.
The jury awarded Diebolt $ 86,339.09 in economic damages. This amount covered medical expenses, lost wages, and reduced earning capacity. They also awarded $553,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life. The total award came to $383,603.46 after the liability reduction.
Court Documents
