Case Background
The legal dispute originated from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the afternoon of December 22, 2023, in New London, Connecticut. Venessa Jones acted as a pedestrian in a parking lot situated at 189 Jefferson Avenue around 2:30 p.m.. At that same moment, Francisco Morocho occupied a parked vehicle within the same lot.
Cause
The incident unfolded when Mr. Morocho’s vehicle suddenly reversed without warning. This movement caused the car to strike Ms. Jones while she walked through the parking area. The plaintiff alleged that the collision resulted directly from the defendant’s failure to maintain a proper lookout or exercise due care for pedestrians in his path.
Injury
Following the impact, Ms. Jones reported a variety of physical ailments. Her medical complaints included lumbar pain, a lumbar sprain, and general back pain. Furthermore, she experienced weakness, numbness, and pain that radiated through both her arms and legs. Beyond these physical symptoms, she claimed to suffer from ongoing mental and physical distress that limited her ability to enjoy her daily activities.
Damages Sought
Ms. Jones sought monetary compensation for the losses she sustained. Her legal team filed a statement of amount in demand indicating that the claim exceeded fifteen thousand dollars, excluding costs and interest. These damages aimed to cover the medical expenses she had already incurred, the costs of future medical care, and compensation for her physical pain and suffering.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation moved through the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of New London over nearly two years. The process began with the filing of the initial complaint in May 2024, followed by the defendant’s formal response later that summer.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Venessa Jones.
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Brian M. Flood of The Flood Law Firm, LLC, based in Middletown, Connecticut.
· Expert for Plaintiff: Eric John Fisher
Defendant: Francisco Morocho.
· Counsel for Defendant: Colleen M. Garlick of Hassett and Donnelly, PC, located in Hartford, Connecticut.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The attorneys focused on the behavior of both parties in the moments leading up to the contact in the parking lot. Mr. Flood argued that his client had been a helpless pedestrian struck by a driver who failed to follow basic safety statutes regarding reversing a vehicle. Conversely, Ms. Garlick maintained that the driver was not at fault and that the plaintiff bore responsibility for her own safety.
Claims
The plaintiff’s legal team presented several theories of negligence against Mr. Morocho. They alleged he had operated his vehicle at an unreasonable speed for a parking area and failed to sound his horn to warn of the impending collision. The complaint specifically cited violations of Connecticut General Statutes, claiming the defendant had moved his vehicle from a stopped position and traveled in reverse when it was clearly unsafe to do so.
Defense
In his formal answer filed in August 2024, Mr. Morocho denied the majority of the plaintiff's allegations. He asserted a "Special Defense," which argued that Ms. Jones had been negligent herself. The defense claimed she had failed to make reasonable use of her senses, neglected to keep a proper lookout, and remained inattentive to her surroundings while walking through the lot. Under this theory, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s own lack of care served as the proximate cause of her injuries.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded in January 2026 before the Superior Court at New London. After hearing the evidence regarding the accident and the conflicting claims of negligence, the jury reached a definitive conclusion.
On January 22, 2026, the jury foreperson, Josh Force, signed the official verdict form. The jury did not find in favor of the injured pedestrian. Instead, they returned a verdict for the defendant, Francisco Morocho. By checking the specific box for a defendant's verdict, the jury indicated that they found in favor of Mr. Morocho and against Ms. Jones. As a result of this finding, the court awarded no monetary damages to the plaintiff, and the defendant was cleared of legal liability for the incident.
