|
| |
Successful Strategies and Tactics
This page will give you some
insight into strategies and tactics we’ve used to fight for justice.
NOVEL LEGAL THEORIES
A hero gave his life on I-75, all for the purpose of helping some people he
didn’t even know. He was headed up north for a family vacation. But another car
suddenly crossed three lanes, crashed into the median and flipped, then slid on
its roof into the fast lane. There were three ladies in that car.
Instinctively, this hero pulled onto the shoulder and rushed to help. As traffic
was slowing, a pick up and a car traveling in the same direction, sideswiped
each other, and then smashed into a van, pushing it against the median wall,
killing him.
His wife came to me. Obviously, the two that were involved in the sideswipe had
to be held to account, and they were.
But this courageous man would not have died if it wasn’t for the negligence of
the driver that flipped. We used the Rescue Doctrine to hold her liable. If one
is negligent and places herself or others in peril, a rescue is invited. The law
allows the rescuer to recover from the person that caused the peril in the first
place. The doctrine is rarely used, but was quite effective. After the court
denied motions to dismiss our case, her insurer paid the full policy.
THE PIVOTAL, OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE
A trucking company lost a fortune because of an error by its insurance agent.
One truck in the fleet crashed, and the company paid the damages. Its insurance
claim was denied. That truck wasn’t on the policy.
The case turned on the credibility of the owner versus the insurance agent: the
owner testified that he phoned the agent and added the truck to the policy, just
as he had done many times before with other trucks. But the agent denied this.
Worse, because the crash happened soon after the truck was added, there was no
confirmation letter. By the time the case came into our hands, discovery was
completed, and settlement discussions were headed south of 50%.
But there was one witness who had not been interviewed. The agent had
professional liability insurance of his own, called “Errors and Omissions
Coverage.” He had to tell his insurer about the claim. I contacted that agent:
“He told me he blew it. He got the phone call but just didn’t get around to
writing the binder.” On that, I flew to Florida, took his trial deposition, and
that case settled immediately for full payment.
DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE LAW
A drunk driver smashed into a patrol car, injuring both police officers. Both
felt they were entitled to compensation from that driver.
But the drunk driver (through his insurance company) filed motions to dismiss
both cases, claiming the officers could not recover because of an ancient, but
still valid, legal rule called the Firemans Rule. This rule said that public
officers can not recover from the criminal because the injury is part of the
risk he agreed to undertake. The judge heard the motion in one of the two cases,
and dismissed the case. The same judge was scheduled to hear the same motion, by
the same defense attorney, for the other officer.
I took over the case and found an exception where the criminal’s conduct could
be characterized as “willful and wanton.” At the hearing, I argued the drunk
driver’s level of intoxication (quite high) and his conduct created a question
of fact that must be decided by the jury. This meant that the case could not be
dismissed. The judge reversed his own ruling, allowing my client to recover.
(Fortunately, the legislature has since abolished this rule.)
MICROSCOPIC SCRATCHES ON BOLT UNRAVELS THE DEFENSE
A young lady purchased a bike from a sporting goods store. She took it for its
maiden ride in Keego Harbor, along Orchard Lake Rd. Everything was fine, until
she pumped down on the right pedal. It broke off, and she flew into the concrete
sidewalk, head first. She had devastating injuries.
The pedals were attached to the bike at the store. The employee testified he was
trained and experienced in bicycle assembly. He testified that the pedals were
carefully threaded into the shafts.
We demanded the manufacturer’s specs to determine whether the parts were
designed to sustain the anticipated force. They were. Next, we had a testing
laboratory examine their composition to determine whether they were properly
heat treated: They were.
Then we had a professor of metallurgy microscopically examine the threads of the
bolt that connect the pedal to the shaft. He found telltale scratches on the
threads that proved the nut and bolt were not mated properly during assembly.
The ridges of the threads were deformed. This weakened the connection, causing
the pedal to brake off. The store could not rebut this and paid a substantial
settlement.
|
