Carr says he recalls nothing about accident

Jurors deliberated for about two hours Friday before returning a $905,000 judgment in the personal injury trial of Tim and Amy Carr.

The jury awarded Tim Carr damages of $830,000 and Amy Carr $75,000. The judgment gives the Carrs the right to collect those amounts but does not guarantee they will actually receive the money.

Tim Carr, the manager of the Sedalia license bureau, and his wife, Amy, sued Benjamin Purscell, the driver of the car that struck theirs at a rural intersection, and the estate of a passenger in that car, Amy Priesendorf. Priesendorf, 24, was killed in the crash.

At issue was how much each defendant was at fault in the crash. Purscell in a video deposition said Priesendorf stomped on the gas pedal of his automobile several times and caused the wreck.

Jurors assigned 50 percent blame to each of the defendants.

Neither the Carrs nor their attorneys would comment on the verdict.

Judge Robert Koffman presided over the trial in Pettis County Circuit Court.

In their closing arguments, lawyers for each side explained how they felt jurors should direct their verdict.

Kirk Rahm, attorney for the Carrs, told the jury to reach the right verdict, but to do it for the right reasons. He spent much of his argument outlining Purscell’s relative fault in the crash, emphasizing that Purscell could have done more to prevent the crash and did share some of the blame, even if only a small percent.

Rahm also encouraged the jury to consider the total amount of damages, not just physical but also emotional, over the rest of the Carrs’ lives.

“The question is what is fair and just for total damages to Tim and Amy Carr,” he said.

Purscell’s attorney, Scot Allen, emphasized his client never wanted the crash to happen. Allen asked the jury to assign an appropriate level of fault to Priesendorf, and asked that damages be reasonable and fair.

Tony Farkas, attorney for Priesendorf’s estate, called Purscell’s version of events leading up to the crash into question, asking jurors to consider his motives and reminding them that

his client could no longer defend herself.

In his rebuttal, Rahm was placed in the awkward position of defending Purscell, disagreeing with Farkas’ assertions that Priesendorf was incapable of doing what Purscell claimed she did.

“The fact that Mr. Purscell made a series of bad judgments is not a defense for the Priesendorf estate,” Rahm said.

Nine jurors were required to agree on a verdict. Jurors at one point sent a note stating that a verdict had been reached, although different groups of nine agreed on different parts of the verdict.

The judge replied that jurors were to follow the instructions, which stated that nine jurors had to agree on all parts of the verdict.

Allen said he would have to consult with his client about an appeal, but said it was not likely. Farkas said he would not appeal.