Case Background
This case came out of a rear-end car crash that took place in Woodbridge, Connecticut, on November 19, 2019. Edward Ward, Jr., a Stratford resident, was driving his 2010 Mazda east on Center Road. It was about one o’clock in the afternoon when traffic slowed near the intersection with North Pease Road. Ward stopped his vehicle behind another car that was waiting to turn left.
Behind him, Rachel Elizabeth Luciani of Orange was driving a 2018 Jeep. According to Ward, Luciani failed to stop in time and struck the rear of his Mazda. The impact pushed his car forward into the vehicle ahead of him, creating a chain reaction collision.
Ward later filed a lawsuit against Luciani, saying her negligence caused the crash and his injuries. He pointed to Connecticut’s motor vehicle laws that require drivers to keep a safe distance and operate with proper control. He argued that Luciani drove too close, failed to keep a lookout, and did not apply her brakes in time to avoid hitting him.
Cause
Ward’s complaint stated that Luciani was negligent in multiple ways:
She followed too closely and violated Connecticut General Statute § 14-240.
She failed to maintain a safe distance and keep her Jeep under control.
She failed to keep a proper lookout for traffic ahead.
She failed to apply her brakes or steer away to prevent the collision.
She drove at a speed greater than was reasonable given the traffic and road conditions.
Ward said these acts and failures directly caused the crash and his resulting injuries.
Injury
Ward listed a wide range of injuries. He reported trauma to his head, neck, left shoulder, left leg, and right wrist. He described stiffness, tightness, and ongoing pain. He also spoke of emotional distress, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, fatigue, and interference with his sleep and appetite.
According to his complaint, the injuries left him unable to enjoy normal activities of daily life. He claimed that some of his injuries were permanent and would continue to impair his quality of life.
Damages
Ward sought money damages exceeding $15,000, along with costs of suit and attorney’s fees. He said he had already incurred substantial medical bills for treatment, medications, and therapy, and that he would likely continue to bear expenses in the future.
He also asked the court to compensate him for non-economic losses such as pain, suffering, emotional trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Edward Ward, Jr.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Stanley Falkenstein | Edward Ward
Experts for Plaintiff: Craig M. Rodner | Frank Javier Garrido | Olga Kovalerchik | Kevin David Stetter | Vincent Pastor | Ian J. Wellington
Defendant: Rachel Elizabeth Luciani
Counsel for Defendant: Steven J. Monn
Experts for Defendant: Andrew Bazos
Claims
Ward’s attorney argued that Luciani had caused a preventable crash by tailgating and not paying attention. He emphasized that the collision was not minor Ward’s vehicle was pushed into another car, showing the force of the impact. The Plaintiff’s team described Ward’s medical struggles since the accident and insisted that Luciani’s careless driving left him with lasting pain.
The Plaintiff relied on motor vehicle statutes, saying Luciani’s actions clearly violated Connecticut’s traffic laws. According to Ward’s counsel, these violations amounted to negligence, and the jury should hold her responsible.
Defense
Luciani’s attorneys denied that she was fully at fault. They filed an answer and raised several special defenses. They claimed that Ward’s own negligence exceeded hers and either reduced or barred his recovery. They argued that Ward braked improperly, that he was inattentive while driving, and that his actions contributed to the collision.
They also suggested that Ward failed to mitigate his damages, alleging that he did not follow his doctors’ medical advice. They raised the statute of limitations as another defense, though the case ultimately proceeded to trial.
The defense acknowledged the accident occurred but portrayed Luciani’s conduct as prudent under the circumstances. They insisted that Ward was at least partly responsible for the crash and its aftermath.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in the Superior Court in Derby. The jury heard both sides, considered the testimony, and reviewed the special defenses. The central question was whether Luciani’s negligence was the proximate cause of Ward’s injuries and losses.
On July 28, 2025, the jury returned its decision finding that Luciani’s negligence was a proximate cause of Ward’s injuries.
The jury issued a Plaintiff’s verdict in favor of Edward Ward, Jr. They awarded him both economic and non-economic damages of $ 62,233.19. The economic award covered his past medical expenses, while the non-economic damages compensated him for physical pain, emotional suffering, permanent injury, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Court Document
