Schmidt v. Associates Asset Recovery, LLC

James Merritt (Atlanta, GA) (Commercial Auto) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of the Defendant towing company after a 3-day jury trial in a personal injury case in Glynn County. The Plaintiff claimed that the defendant tow operator had improperly connected the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the tow truck, causing the Plaintiff’s vehicle to suddenly shift to one side when the Plaintiff leaned into his vehicle to retrieve his personal belongings. The Plaintiff claimed that when his vehicle suddenly dropped, it hit the top of his head, causing a permanent traumatic brain injury (TBI) and a neck injury which required surgery. The Plaintiff was claiming over $265,000 in medical bills. Liability was disputed. Before trial, we successfully convinced the Judge to exclude the defendant tow operator’s criminal record, which was extensive. Unfortunately, the Judge also refused to allow evidence of the Plaintiff’s serious and extensive criminal record, despite case law demonstrating its admissibility. During voir dire, we also successfully rehabilitated more than 7 defense-friendly potential jurors and convinced the Judge to deny all 7 of the Plaintiff’s motions to strike those jurors for cause. At trial, Plaintiff called a towing expert who testified that the Defendant failed to safely perform this tow operation. However, on cross, we were able to get the Plaintiff’s tow expert to admit that he had not seen any evidence of negligence. Plaintiff also called his operating spine surgeon to testify in-person that the Plaintiff’s spine surgery was necessary for the injuries caused by the incident. The surgeon also testified that the Plaintiff’s neck injuries were permanent and would require a minimum of one future neck surgery, and possibly two. On cross examination, we were able to get the surgeon to admit that he had no personal knowledge of the incident, so his causation opinion necessarily relied on the assumption that the Plaintiff had been completely honest and forthright when reporting the facts of the incident, his symptoms, and his medical history in the exam room. In closing arguments, the Plaintiff asked for a total verdict of just under $3 million. After the close of the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief and again after the close of evidence, both parties moved for directed verdict on the issues of liability and proximate causation. Each time, however, the Judge denied all motions from both sides. During the charge conference, we objected to numerous of the Plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions, and the Judge sustained all of our charge objections except one. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury returned a Defense Verdict.