$20.6 millionVerdict

$20.6 Million Verdict for Man Severely Injured by FSS Technologies Van While Snow-Blowing His Driveway

Verdict · Wayne County, Michigan (Circuit Court, affirmed by Michigan Court of Appeals May 2026) · 2024

Won by Ven Johnson Law, PLC.

A Wayne County jury awarded $20,595,570 to Terry Novak after a van driver for FSS Technologies lost control, crossed the center line, and struck Novak while he was clearing snow from his own driveway in Romulus.

What happened

On February 3, 2022, Terry Novak was snow-blowing his driveway on Pennsylvania Road in Romulus, Michigan, when a white van bearing the FSS Technologies name lost control, fishtailed across the center line, and struck him from behind. The impact threw Novak into the air and left him with a traumatic brain injury, multiple rib fractures, a fractured vertebra, and damage to his liver, heart, and lungs. He survived the crash but faced two spinal-fusion surgeries and chronic pain expected to last the rest of his life.

The driver, Nicholas R. Toth, was operating the van in the course of his employment with FSS Technologies, a security-systems company based in Plymouth, Michigan. Novak brought claims of direct negligence against Toth and respondeat superior and negligent-entrustment claims against FSS Technologies. During trial, the defendants stipulated that both Toth and FSS were negligent, leaving the amount of damages as the sole question for the jury.

Ven Johnson of Ven Johnson Law represented Novak at trial. The case went before a Wayne County jury in February 2024, which returned a verdict of $20,595,570.66 in damages. Novak passed away several months after the trial, and the personal representative of his estate was later substituted as the party on appeal.

The defendants appealed, arguing among other things that plaintiff's counsel had made improper statements during closing argument and that the award was excessive. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in a May 2026 opinion. The court held that the defense had not objected to the closing-argument remarks at trial and could not show the statements denied them a fair trial, and it found the award supported by the evidence. No remittitur or reduction was ordered.

Sources

This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.