Missouri woman wins $800,000 after delivery driver crosses traffic blindly

A Missouri appeals court has upheld an $800,000 jury award for a woman injured when a delivery van pulled into her path after a truck driver waved it forward. The court found there was no evidence that the woman was driving too fast, and it rejected the defence argument that she shared fault for the crash. The case, Amy Bolandis v. Thomas Bateman and UniFirst Corporation, turned on a simple but important question. Could the driver who pulled out blindly into traffic blame the other motorist for travelling at a normal speed? The Missouri Court of Appeals said no, as per report on Justia U.S. Law.

What happened on Hall Street

The crash occurred around 7:05 in the morning on 19 December 2018, on Hall Street in St Louis. Conditions were dry and daylight was clear, with no rain, snow or poor visibility. Thomas Bateman was driving a commercial Freightliner Step Van for UniFirst and was exiting a parking lot. He intended to cross Hall Street, a road with two lanes in each direction plus a centre turn lane. A semitruck had stopped in the right southbound lane to turn into the same parking lot. That truck blocked Bateman's view to the left and also blocked the view of the oncoming driver, Amy Bolandis, to the right.

The wave that changed everything

The semitruck driver waved Bateman forward, signalling that it was safe to pull out. Bateman did so, and Bolandis's car struck the rear of his van. Bateman later admitted that the collision was his fault. He said he believed vehicles already on the road had the right of way, but he did not yield to them. He also admitted that he did not check for oncoming traffic or keep a careful lookout. He said he did not see Bolandis's vehicle until the moment of impact.

The injuries and the verdict

Bolandis suffered a dislocated and broken ankle in the crash. She underwent surgery nine days later and was cleared to return to work in January 2019. Her ankle began hurting again in April 2024, years after the initial injury. An orthopaedic surgeon described the trauma as high velocity, highlighting the severity of the impact. A jury awarded her $800,000 in damages, plus post-judgment interest, as per the report. The defence appealed, arguing that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider whether Bolandis was driving too fast.

The argument over speed

The defence claimed that Bolandis may have been driving at an excessive speed for the conditions, even though she was not over the posted limit. The speed limit on Hall Street was 45 miles per hour, and Bolandis estimated she was travelling around 40 miles per hour. The defence argued that passing other cars, the obstructed view caused by the semitruck and the force of the collision all pointed to excessive speed. They said this should have been left to the jury to decide. The trial court disagreed. It found there was no substantial evidence that Bolandis was driving too fast for the conditions, and it refused to give the jury an instruction on comparative fault.

What the appeals court said

The Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo, meaning it looked at the legal question fresh rather than deferring to the trial court. It concluded that the defence had failed to present enough evidence to support a claim of excessive speed. The court noted that Bolandis testified she was driving with the flow of traffic and had passed only a few cars over a four-and-a-half-mile stretch. The defence offered no evidence about the speed of those other cars or the condition of the road. The court also found no evidence that road or visibility conditions required Bolandis to slow down. Without that, the claim that her speed was excessive had no legal basis.

Why the wave did not matter

One might assume that the truck driver's wave would shift some blame away from Bateman. The appeals court did not see it that way. Bateman admitted that he pulled out blindly when his vision was blocked. He also said that if he had seen Bolandis before pulling out, the collision would never have happened. The court held that this admission, combined with the lack of evidence against Bolandis, meant the jury could not reasonably find that her speed contributed to the crash. The wave from the truck driver did not change that conclusion.

What this means going forward

The ruling reinforces a basic principle of road safety. A driver who pulls into traffic must ensure it is safe to do so, regardless of whether another driver signals them forward. It also clarifies that being within the speed limit does not automatically protect a driver from a comparative fault claim. But the defence must show that conditions actually required a slower speed and that the speed prevented the driver from avoiding the crash. For Bolandis, the decision means the $800,000 award stands. For drivers everywhere, it is a reminder that a wave from another motorist is not a substitute for checking the road yourself.