Case Background
On November 8, 2019, a Friday evening, Maria Guzman stopped her car at a red light on Kings Highway East in Fairfield, Connecticut. She was in the left lane, waiting behind other cars. At that same moment, Lucas Rodrigues drove a vehicle owned by Aquiles Dasilveira-Rodrigues eastbound on the same road. Without braking or swerving, Rodrigues struck the rear of Guzman’s car.
The impact threw Guzman forward and left her shaken. What began as a routine stop at a traffic light turned into years of litigation. Guzman filed a lawsuit against Rodrigues and the vehicle owner, claiming negligence caused her lasting injuries and financial losses
Cause
The central cause was a rear-end collision at a traffic signal. Guzman claimed Rodrigues failed to pay attention, drove too fast for the conditions, and ignored the vehicles ahead. She accused him of not braking in time, not turning to avoid impact, and not maintaining proper control of his vehicle.
Her complaint also alleged violations of Connecticut traffic laws. She cited statutes requiring safe following distance, proper lane use, and speed reasonable for the conditions.
Injury
The crash left Guzman with several physical injuries. She reported neck and spine injuries that led to nerve pain and ultimately required surgery. She also experienced head trauma, shoulder and arm pain, and persistent headaches.
Beyond the physical harm, she said she endured ongoing pain and suffering. She could not work for extended periods, lost wages, and struggled to return to her usual activities.
Damages
Guzman sought monetary damages exceeding $15,000, exclusive of costs and interest. Her demand covered medical expenses, both past and future, lost earnings, and the reduced ability to earn in the future. She also asked compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of life enjoyment.
The complaint suggested that her injuries might be permanent. She argued that the crash took away her independence and altered her daily life.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Maria Guzman
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christopher J. Flood
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Patrick Mastroianni | Olivia A. Begasse de Dhaem | Anthony Karam | Vidhya Varadarajan | Lisa B. Webb
Defendant(s): Lucas Rodrigues | Aquiles Dasilveira-Rodrigues
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jeffrey C. Nagle
· Experts for Defendant(s): Stephen F. Calderon | Phillip Anthony Micalizzi | Michael Paris | Jeffrey Bash
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Claims
Guzman and her lawyers framed the case as a straightforward instance of negligence. They argued that she was lawfully stopped at a red light when Rodrigues, without warning, crashed into her. They highlighted the absence of braking, the force of impact, and the resulting serious medical problems.
They also pressed the point that Rodrigues’s actions broke traffic safety laws. Guzman’s counsel told the jury that these failures showed clear negligence and created responsibility for the injuries she suffered.
Defense’s Response
The defense told a different story. In their formal answer, Rodrigues and the vehicle’s owner admitted the collision occurred but denied negligence. They pointed to Guzman’s own driving, arguing she bore responsibility for the crash.
Their special defense alleged that Guzman was inattentive, failed to keep her vehicle under control, and even exited a private driveway unsafely. They claimed she drove too fast for the conditions and did not yield the right of way when required.
By raising these arguments, the defense sought to shift or share liability. They asked the jury to consider comparative negligence, a legal rule that can reduce or eliminate damages if the injured party contributed to the crash.
Jury Verdict
The case reached a verdict in October 2024, almost five years after the crash. The jury faced two options: find for Guzman and award damages or side with the Defendants.
After deliberation, the jury returned its decision. They issued a verdict in favor of the Defendant’s insurer, Central Mutual Insurance Company, against Guzman. This meant the jury rejected Guzman’s claims for damages.
By siding with the defense, the jury concluded that Rodrigues and his insurer bore no legal responsibility for Guzman’s injuries. The decision effectively ended her effort to recover compensation in this case.
