Case Background
On a morning in late September 2019, a routine commute in Miami-Dade County transformed into a multi-year legal dispute after a City of Miami vehicle slammed into the back of a car carrying four people. Andre Cenous operated the lead vehicle, traveling north on N.W. 2nd Avenue with Joseph Romel, Marie Bien-Aime, and Nesly Francois as his passengers. As the group approached the intersection of N.W. 58th Street, Cenous brought the car to a full stop for traffic. At that same moment, Officer Calzadilla, an employee of the City of Miami, drove a city-owned vehicle directly behind them. The officer failed to stop in time and crashed into the rear of the Plaintiffs' stationary car.
Cause
The crash occurred because the city employee operated his vehicle in a negligent manner. The Plaintiffs alleged that the officer failed to maintain a proper lookout and did not keep a safe distance from the traffic ahead of him. By rear-ending a stopped vehicle in broad daylight, the officer breached his duty to operate the vehicle safely, which the Plaintiffs argued was the direct cause of the collision.
Injury
All four occupants Cenous, Romel, Bien-Aime, and Francois—reported that they sustained bodily injuries because of the impact. In their formal complaint, they stated that the crash caused them significant pain, suffering, and mental anguish. They also claimed the accident led to physical impairment and a diminished ability to enjoy their daily lives. The Plaintiffs asserted that several of these injuries were permanent or continuing in nature, requiring ongoing attention.
Damages Sought
The group filed a lawsuit seeking monetary compensation exceeding $30,000 to cover their cumulative losses. Their demands included payment for past medical expenses and the cost of future healthcare. They also sought damages for hospitalization and nursing care that they required following the collision.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal battle began in September 2021 when the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. Over the next four years, the parties engaged in a long discovery process as they prepared for a jury trial. A significant change occurred just before the trial concluded; on October 21, 2025, Joseph Romel’s attorney requested to voluntarily dismiss his specific claim. The Court later enforced this dismissal, leaving only three Plaintiffs to seek a verdict from the jury.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Andre Cenous | Joseph Romel | Marie Bien-Aime | Nesly Francois.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kertch J. Conze, Esq. | James Bishop, Esq.
Defendant(s): City of Miami.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Victoria Méndez | Brandon L. Fernandez. | Joseph-Robert Forman | Nicholas Basco | Kenny Vixama
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiffs' legal team focused on the simplicity of the rear-end collision. They argued that because the officer hit a stopped car, the City was clearly at fault. They presented the medical history of the occupants to show how the crash had altered their lives. On the other side, the City's defense team questioned the severity of the incident. They argued that the Plaintiffs had not proven a direct link between the minor collision and the extensive medical issues they claimed.
Claims
The central claim against the City was negligence. The Plaintiffs argued that because the officer performed his job duties at the time of the crash, the City of Miami was legally responsible for his actions. They also invoked the "dangerous instrumentality doctrine," which holds the owner of a vehicle responsible for damages caused by anyone operating it with their permission.
Defense
The City of Miami mounted a comprehensive defense. They denied that the officer's actions reached the level of legal negligence and contested the claim that the accident caused the specific injuries described. The City argued that some of the Plaintiffs' physical complaints might have existed before the 2019 crash. They also raised "affirmative defenses," suggesting that the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages or that the incident was an unavoidable accident. Finally, the City reminded the Court that as a government entity, any potential payout would be limited by Florida’s sovereign immunity laws.
Jury Verdict
The case culminated in a jury trial in October 2025. After the lawyers presented their evidence and witnesses, the jury moved to deliberations to decide the fate of the remaining claims.
The Verdict for Andre Cenous
The jury first addressed the claim of the driver, Andre Cenous. They answered a preliminary question confirming that Officer Calzadilla was indeed acting within the scope of his employment with the City of Miami at the time of the crash. However, the case hit a wall at the next question. When asked if the motor vehicle accident was the legal cause of Andre Cenous’s loss, injury, or damages, the jury checked the box for "No." Because they found no legal causation, they did not award any money to Mr. Cenous.
The Verdict for Nesly Francois
The jury followed the exact same path for Nesly Francois. While they agreed the officer was working for the city, they determined that the 2019 accident did not legally cause the injuries Mr. Francois claimed. Just as they did with the driver, the jury declined to award any damages to Mr. Francois and ended their deliberations for his claim.
The Verdict for Marie Bien-Aime
The jury reached the same conclusion for Marie Bien-Aime. They confirmed the officer's employment status with the City at the time of the collision. However, the jury found that the motor vehicle accident was not the legal cause of any loss, injury, or damage to Ms. Bien-Aime. Consequently, they awarded her no damages.
Final Judgment
On November 2, 2025, Judge William Thomas signed the Final Judgment. The Court officially entered judgment in favor of the City of Miami and against Andre Cenous, Marie Bien-Aime, and Nesly Francois. The judge ordered that the Plaintiffs "take nothing by this action" and declared the City the prevailing party. While the case officially closed for all parties, the Court kept jurisdiction until mid-December to handle any final motions regarding legal fees or Court costs. The City of Miami successfully defended the claim, leaving the Plaintiffs with no financial recovery from the lawsuit.
Court Documents
