Passenger Wins $17K Verdict in Woodbridge Crash Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
This civil lawsuit unfolded in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, before a jury in 2025. Plaintiff Ashley Sanchez brought claims against multiple Defendants Julie Spinelli, Laura Spinelli, Rogelio Aleman, and Julio Estrada-Sanchez arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 12, 2022, on Route 69/Litchfield Turnpike in Woodbridge, Connecticut.
Sanchez, a passenger in a vehicle operated by Rogelio Aleman, filed suit on October 27, 2023, alleging negligence and vicarious liability against the involved parties. The case proceeded through discovery and depositions before reaching trial, where liability and damages were hotly disputed.
Cause
The lawsuit stemmed from a morning crash on a busy section of Route 69. Traffic traveling south was stopped, leaving a break for cars to turn into Andrea’s Plaza. Aleman, driving north with Sanchez as his passenger, attempted a left-hand turn into the plaza. At the same time, Julie Spinelli, traveling south, moved into an open lane to pass the stopped traffic and collided with Aleman’s vehicle.
Sanchez claimed that Spinelli’s abrupt lane change and unsafe speed caused the impact that led to her injuries. She also asserted negligence against Aleman for failing to yield the right of way and turning without sufficient caution.
Injury
Sanchez sustained multiple soft-tissue injuries from the crash, including cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sprains, as well as a right shoulder strain. She reported persistent back and shoulder pain, headaches, and difficulty performing daily tasks. Medical evidence showed she underwent extensive chiropractic care, orthopedic consultations, and physical therapy.
Her physicians testified that while most of her injuries were expected to heal, she continued to experience pain and stiffness, affecting her ability to fully return to her prior activities.
Damages Sought
Sanchez sought damages for medical expenses, lost enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering. Her medical bills included emergency transport and hospital care, treatment from Yale Medicine and Yale Orthopedics, imaging services, and months of physical therapy.
She asked the jury for full compensation for her past medical costs and non-economic losses, claiming that the accident disrupted her work, daily comfort, and sense of well-being.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Ashley Sanchez
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Megan E. Boorsma
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Virginia McKenna-Seman | Paul Pezzino
Defendant(s): Julie Spinelli and Laura Spinelli
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Amanda Buckingham
· Experts for Defendant(s): Adam Q. Ferguson
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Boorsma argued that Julie Spinelli caused the crash by moving recklessly into an open lane to pass stopped traffic without ensuring it was safe to do so. She told the jury that Spinelli violated multiple Connecticut traffic statutes by failing to remain in her lane, keep a proper lookout, and drive at a reasonable speed for the conditions.
She also emphasized that Laura Spinelli, as the owner of the vehicle, bore vicarious liability for the negligent driving under Connecticut General Statutes §52-182.
The defense countered that Aleman caused the crash by turning left into the path of oncoming traffic when it was unsafe to do so. Buckingham argued that Spinelli reacted reasonably in an unexpected situation and that Aleman’s failure to yield was the true cause of the collision.
Claims
Negligence – Julie Spinelli
Sanchez alleged that Spinelli failed to keep her vehicle under control, made an unsafe lane change, and operated her car too fast for the traffic conditions. She argued that these negligent actions caused the crash and her injuries.
Vicarious Liability – Laura Spinelli
Sanchez sought to hold Laura Spinelli responsible as the vehicle’s owner, asserting that she gave permission for Julie to drive her car, thereby making her legally liable for the negligent operation.
Negligence – Rogelio Aleman
Sanchez also filed a negligence claim against Aleman, asserting that his left turn into Andrea’s Plaza violated the right-of-way rules and contributed to the crash.
Vicarious Liability – Julio Estrada-Sanchez
Finally, she claimed that Aleman’s co-Defendant, Julio Estrada-Sanchez, as the vehicle’s owner, was responsible for Aleman’s actions under Connecticut’s vicarious liability statute.
Defense
Julie and Laura Spinelli denied liability, contending that Julie’s driving was lawful and prudent under the circumstances. Their attorney argued that Aleman’s unsafe turn, not Spinelli’s lane change, caused the accident.
The defense denied all allegations of negligence, disputed the extent of Sanchez’s injuries, and challenged the reasonableness of her medical expenses. They also claimed that some of her pain resulted from preexisting conditions rather than the crash.
Aleman, named as an apportionment Defendant, also maintained that his driving complied with traffic laws and that the collision occurred because Spinelli suddenly entered his path.
Jury Verdict
After several days of testimony and argument, the jury deliberated on October 17, 2025, and returned a split-liability verdict.
The jurors found that both Julie and Laura Spinelli were negligent, as was Rogelio Aleman. They apportioned 65% fault to Julie and Laura Spinelli and 35% fault to Aleman, concluding that both drivers shared responsibility for causing the collision.
The jury awarded Sanchez $106,180.84 in economic damages, representing her medical costs, and $15,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The total award amounted to $121,180.84 before apportionment.
After reducing the award by 35% for Aleman’s comparative negligence, the Court entered a final judgment of $78767.54 in favor of Ashley Sanchez against Julie and Laura Spinelli.
Final Judgment
The verdict represented a partial victory for Sanchez, confirming that both drivers shared fault in the crash but awarding her modest damages reflective of her documented medical expenses and pain.
On October 17, 2025, the Superior Court of Connecticut entered judgment accordingly, closing a two-year dispute that began with a split-second decision on a busy Woodbridge roadway.
Court Documents