Wilson v. Byler

Facts of the Case

The collision occurred on July 16, 2022, on the low-grade Enola Trail in Lancaster, where the trail intersects with Bushong Road.

• The Patient: Heath Wilson, a 51-year-old man with an “incredible zest for life”, was an active cyclist who biked 300 miles a week.
• The Incident: As Wilson was crossing Bushong Road in a designated crosswalk, the defendant, Donald Byler, driving a JM lap work truck, was allegedly speeding and not paying attention. Byler hit Wilson, who was thrown 25 feet after hitting the windshield.
• The Damages: Wilson suffered a horrific Grade 3 Diffuse Axonal Brain Injury (DAI), was in a coma for weeks, and remains in a long-term care facility. He is now bedridden, requires a Hoyer lift, and has lost the ability to perform basic self-care like bathing or using the bathroom. The plaintiff’s expert established Wilson’s life care and wages totaled over $13 million.

Theories of Liability

The plaintiff’s case for liability was built almost entirely on accident reconstruction, as Mr. Wilson was amnesic to the event.

• Negligence of Byler (Driver): The driver was speeding (34–38 mph before braking). Crucially, the site of the crash had an advanced warning sign (diamond-shaped yellow sign with a pedestrian/bicycle crossing) that Byler failed to heed.
• Exposing Defense Theories: The defense initially claimed the driver’s vision was blocked by his rear-view mirror and an E-ZPass. Plaintiff’s reconstruction expert, Dr. Shore, used 3D scanning to prove these objects played “absolutely no role” in obstructing Byler’s vision from 100 feet away. The defense abandoned this theory after opening statements. The jury ultimately attributed 15% comparative negligence to Mr. Wilson, which the attorney considered fair.

Defense Decisions That Backfired

The defense made several decisions that were described as “gifts” to the plaintiff:

• Lowball Offer: Despite their own economic report putting conservative damages at $4 million to $8 million, the final offer before trial was only $500,000. The defense never adjusted the offer or asked for a high-low agreement once the trial started.
• Uncrossable Plaintiff: The defense attorney cross-examined the plaintiff, Heath Wilson, after his deeply moving testimony, asking him questions like, “Heath, you like to ride bikes real fast, right?” This question, directed at a bedridden man with slurred speech, was a major “gift” to the plaintiff.
• Expert Misstatement: The defense’s expert erroneously told the jury that the State Police “charged” Heath Wilson with a motor vehicle code violation. Because the police report had been excluded, the plaintiff’s attorney moved for a mistrial, but Judge Black instead issued a powerful, curative instruction that instructed the jury to disregard the testimony because Wilson was never charged or cited. This effectively made the defense expert appear dishonest.

The Compelling Damages Argument

The final witness was the plaintiff, Heath Wilson, who testified via Zoom from his long-term care facility. This was the first time the jury saw his current, severely disabled state, creating an emotional contrast with the prior photos of him as a highly athletic man.

• The Emotional Climax: Attorney Boylan’s final questions were: “Heath, everything that’s happened to you, have you ever thought about giving up?” (Answer: “Yeah.”). “But are you ever going to give up?” (Answer: “No. I have too much to live for.”). The courtroom, including the jury and attorney, erupted in tears.
• The “Dinner Table” Theme: The attorney’s closing argument bookended the case with the simple fact that Wilson was hit while going to a dinner date. He argued that the human loss was “far greater” than the $13 million in economic damages.
• The Pledge: In the final moments of closing, the attorney asked the jury to “choose hard” by awarding a big number, pledging that Wilson would never waste a cent of the money because he would use it to “fight, fight, and fight” until one day he could sit at that dinner table with his girlfriend, Susan.

The Verdict

The jury awarded every dime requested for economic damages and added an additional $16 million in non-economic damages.

• Total Verdict: $29 million (and change).
• Non-Economics Breakdown: The jury awarded $4 million for each of the four categories of non-economic loss.

Emotional Response: As the verdict was read, members of the jury were crying, demonstrating that they were proud of their decision to “do the right thing”.