Case Background
A Pittsburgh man sued another city resident after a hit-and-run crash left him with multiple serious injuries. The case went to trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, before Judge Arnold I. Klein. The jury was sworn on September 24, 2025, and returned its verdict the following day, September 25, 2025, awarding the Plaintiff a total of $225,000 in damages.
Cause
On or about October 10, 2022, Plaintiff Harvey Daniels was riding his motorcycle westbound on Penn Avenue in Pittsburgh. He stopped at a red light at the intersection of Penn Avenue and East Liberty Boulevard. While stopped, a vehicle struck him from behind. The driver did not stop and fled the scene. Following an investigation, Daniels and his legal team identified the Defendant, Thomas Savini, of 311 Taylor Street, Pittsburgh, as the driver who hit him and left the scene.
Injury
The rear-end collision threw Daniels off his motorcycle and onto the pavement. He suffered several injuries to his right side, including a right-hand injury, a right knee injury, a right ankle sprain, and a right foot injury. He also sustained abrasions and road rash. Among the more serious injuries was a right wrist injury involving a rupture of the intercarpal ligament between the scaphoid and lunate bones. The complaint noted that the full extent of all injuries was not yet fully known at the time of filing.
Damages Sought
Daniels sought damages exceeding the arbitration limits of Allegheny County. His claims included past and future physical and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, the cost of past and future medical care, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages, and potential future loss of earning capacity. He also claimed that his general health, strength, and vitality were impaired as a result of the accident.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Harvey Daniels
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Brandon R. Keller | Ainsman Levine
Defendant: Thomas Savini
· Counsel for Defendant: Frank J. Kochin
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel argued that Savini drove his vehicle into the rear of Daniels stopped motorcycle, causing a violent collision that sent his client flying off the bike and onto the road. Counsel framed the crash as a clear case of negligent driving, pointing to Savini's failure to maintain proper control of his vehicle, his failure to pay attention to traffic conditions, and his decision to flee the scene rather than stop and render aid.
Defense counsel, in the Answer and New Matter filed September 8, 2023, denied nearly all of the Plaintiff's allegations and demanded strict proof at trial. The defense also raised several affirmative defenses, challenging both liability and the extent of any recoverable damages.
Claims
Daniels brought a single count of negligence against Savini. He alleged that Savini drove his vehicle into the back of his motorcycle without warning, failed to keep his vehicle under control, failed to stay attentive to traffic around him, and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the crash. Daniels also alleged that Savini drove at an unsafe speed, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3362(a)(1.1); drove in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3714; and followed too closely, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3310 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The case was filed as a complaint in civil action on July 28, 2023, and a jury trial was demanded.
Defense
Savini's legal team responded to each paragraph of the complaint by stating that he lacked sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the averments, effectively denying all material allegations and requiring the Plaintiff to prove each one at trial. As to the negligence count and the injury and damages paragraphs, the defense treated them as legal conclusions requiring no response, while specifically denying them if a response turned out to be necessary.
In New Matter, the defense raised several affirmative defenses. These included the claim that the complaint failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted and that the claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The defense also invoked the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, noting that if Daniels had elected limited tort coverage, his recovery would be restricted to economic damages only. The defense argued that Daniels may have failed to mitigate his damages and raised the possibility of contributory negligence on Daniels' part under Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Statute. Finally, the defense contended that Daniels' injuries and damages, if any, arose from pre-existing, intervening, or superseding causes beyond Savini's control, and that any medical expenses admitted into evidence should be reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center, 765 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2001).
Jury Verdict
The jury found in favor of Plaintiff Harvey Daniels and against Defendant Thomas Savini. It determined that Savini was negligent and that his negligence was a factual cause of harm to Daniels. The jury then awarded damages broken into two categories.
For past non-economic damages covering past physical and mental pain and suffering, past embarrassment and humiliation, past loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, and disfigurement the jury awarded $150,000.
For future non-economic damages covering future physical and mental pain and suffering, future embarrassment and humiliation, and future loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life the jury awarded $75,000.
The total verdict came to $225,000. The verdict slip was signed by the foreperson on September 25, 2025.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
