Energy On The Offensive #053 - Girl T-boned by corporate work truck. Back injuries. No surgery. $2.5M Verdict.

Here is an interesting plaintiff podcast case analysis; pay attention to the jury selection and opening statement methodology.

- “Depositions of the key defense witnesses IS the trial. Period.”
- “Insurance companies badly underestimate the value of pain management; we work to maximize that value.” Often see $100k offers from insurance companies; the offers are always so low. “This makes the decision to go to trial very easy.”

Case: Girl T-boned by corporate work truck.  Back injuries. No surgery.

- Voir dire was planned to highlight damages. This was a new method for us; learned at a plaintiff attorney workshop. “Inclusive voir dire” to get buy in from jurors in the jury selection process; ask them if they want to be on this jury in planned intervals. Every few minutes, asked “based on what you’ve heard so far…who would like to stay?’ Get them to verbalize their answer. Right after topic of responsibility, asked jurors “who wants to stay”… one juror said “I want to stay because I want to see those who don’t take responsibility pay for their actions.”  He said that out loud “and I was like ‘OMG’…this is our guy.”

Told the jury we wanted $5M in jury selection, then immediately asked “who still wants to be here?” More than half of the jurors raised their hand. We then called on jurors who didn’t raise their hands, and most of them said “I’d never award that kind of money.” Every time a juror said something negative, we thanked them immensely, which helped exposed other negative jurors. “These jurors struck themselves….and the judge booted all of them for cause.”  This method works.

- “Most defense attorneys are not prepared for this methodology in jury selection.”

- The defense attorney asked jurors, one by one, “what do you think about lawsuits and greedy plaintiff lawyers.” That was their only meaningful question. “Many stated that they didn’t like frivolous lawsuits…and we didn’t care, because that wasn’t our case.” At this point, we knew we had a major advantage.

- In opening statement, first thing we said was “They agree they hit her, they agree they hurt her, they agree it is permanent; their driver, their lawyer, their doctors.” It was written on a board for jurors to see. The defense attorney had “no clue what was coming and stepped right into it.” The first sentence of your opening is the most important thing you will say. (FYI, I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU THIS FOR MANY YEARS...)

- Defense theme: Yes, we caused the crash, but she isn’t "that" hurt.

- We called 7 witnesses on day one; 5 on day two; up and down quickly.

- On cross examination, the point was to be simple and intentional. Jurors told us after the trial that “we made the defense experts look like fools.” The crosses were very short and powerful. “The fact that the expert physicians never personally examined the plaintiff really hurt their credibility.”

Pre-trial offer: $150k rejected.
Plaintiff asked jury for $5M…defense counter anchored at $1M.

Verdict $2.5M.