“This case presented significant challenges during an extended trial. I am appreciative of the jury’s verdict and am pleased to have secured such a good outcome for our clients,” said Peter E. Garvey, lead defense counsel with Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, LLP.

The case of Mark Diebot v Keith Neilson consisted of a two-week jury trial in Connecticut Superior Court, New London Judicial District, with Judge Cecil Thomas presiding. (KNL-CV22-6058782-S)

A bicyclist and a motorist were involved in an intersectional collision, and the verdict was favorable for the defendant (insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company). 

The plaintiff, a successful, self-employed 60-year-old Team USA Triathlete, was training for an upcoming triathlon and riding a $5,500 time-trial bicycle northbound on Route 54 in Essex, Connecticut, within the fog line, which marks the edge of the legally driven portion of the road. 

On July 7, 2021, the defendant was operating his SUV westbound on South Cove Lane, intending to turn left and head south onto Route 54. Upon reaching the intersection, he came to a complete stop behind the white stop line. There were no stop signs or other traffic devices present.   

The defendant's view of oncoming traffic in the northbound lane of Route 54 was obstructed by shrubbery. 

The defendant inched out past the white stop line to gain a better view of northbound traffic, looking to his left at least twice before the plaintiff collided with the driver's side of his SUV, causing serious orthopedic injuries to the cyclist's right ankle and lower back while the cyclist shattered the defendant's windshield with his body. 

Claims of negligence and common law and statutory recklessness on the defendant's part ensued, though the latter claims were voluntarily withdrawn at the close of evidence. 

The defendant raised Special Defenses of comparative negligence against the plaintiff because of his excessive speed under the conditions and his failure to watch out while in an aerodynamic/tuck position. 

The plaintiff sought economic and noneconomic damages in the form of past and future pain and suffering, past lost earnings, permanency, scarring, and medical bills. The defense did not challenge the cause of the resulting surgery to the plaintiff's right ankle, but the lumbar injuries were. 

Both parties presented their own experts, including accident reconstructionists and orthopedic physicians, to testify to liability and medical causation issues. The plaintiff also presented an expert concerning the training received by the plaintiff to become a competitive bicyclist. 

At closing argument, the plaintiff demanded approximately 13 million dollars in damages, while the defendant sought a defense verdict. On January 29, 2025, the jury found the defendant 60% negligent and the plaintiff 40% comparatively negligent, and awarded the plaintiff a net amount of $383,339.

The plaintiff has since filed a motion to set aside the verdict and requested a new trial. A hearing is pending, along with the defendant's objection to this motion.

One month before the trial, the defendant made a formal Offer of Compromise for $500,001. The plaintiff's pretrial demand was $2.5 million (the limit of the auto and umbrella policies).