In this week’s Legal Beagle Podcast, Jonathan Negretti talks about the four-day trial that Negretti & Associates just concluded. Jonathan explains why trials are hard, why trials are unpredictable, and why trials are where you find justice.

---

At the end of April, our firm wrapped up a four-day trial. The entire month was prep work and getting ready for that trial.

With that said, fresh from my experience of going to trial, I’d like to share my experience. My three take-aways are as follows:

1. Trials are hard.
2. Trials are unpredictable.
3. Trials are where you find justice.

Sometimes, you have to go to trial. As an attorney, you find that there’s simply no way to resolve a case without going to trial.

I really do believe that you can find justice — in essence, accountability for the wrongdoing by the defendants — through trial.

There are times when you can find accountability through settlement.

It doesn’t mean that every case needs to go to trial. Yet, unless the defendants — and really, I’m talking about insurance companies — know that you’re serious, they’re not going to take you seriously.

The case we just tried took a few years to get to trial. This is often the situation.

Clients often ask, “How long is this whole process going to take?” I used to say 12 to 18 months. That was an aggressive timeline. That timeline is nowhere close to what we’re seeing today.

The timing of going to trial has more to do with just the time it takes to get a case ready for trial.

There is work to be done on both sides of the aisle — from the plaintiff’s side to the defense side. There are depositions that need to be taken and medical exams that may need to be conducted. Just getting medical records and putting experts’ evaluations into place can take quite a while.

There are two different types of trials: bench trials and jury trials.

• In a bench trial, a judge hears arguments from both sides and then makes the decision.
• A jury trial is what you would probably know from TV and movies that you’ve seen. A jury of one’s peers is selected. After hearing arguments, members of the jury deliberate and decide upon the case.

The trial that Negretti & Associates recently wrapped up was a bench trial.

Trials Are Hard

Trials are hard on everyone — not just the attorneys involved, or the clients involved. They’re hard on the judicial system, too. They’re hard on the people who are tasked with making a decision about a case, whether that’s a judge or a jury. Trials are hard on the experts who are involved, as well as the support staff at law firms.

Going to trial requires a mountain of work. There’s no way to really capture this in words. You just have to live and experience it. Frankly, I would hope that most clients don’t have to live through a trial experience. It’s not a fun experience for most people.

In a personal injury context, you’re in a trial because you were hurt in some way. You’re not in trial because going to trial ends up being some sort of positive experience in the way that you would think it would be. You’re there because something happened and deeply impacted your life. An event disrupted your life, causing a need for a claim to be brought, a lawsuit to be filed, litigation to transpire, and a courtroom to be visited.

As an attorney, I enjoy trial work, and I really have a sense of fulfillment that comes along with this work. But that’s because it is what I have signed up to do. By contrast, people who are driving down the road and get hit unexpectedly in a car crash aren’t looking for a trial. I acknowledge and I recognize this.

---

---

There’s stress involved. The prep work involved for our recent trial was pretty extensive!

We’re talking about weeks and weeks and weeks of prep — re-reading deposition transcripts, talking with our experts, thinking about trial strategy, working on the opening statement, working on the case-in-chief, which is where the plaintiff puts on their witnesses. We then worked on a rebuttal for the defense case-in-chief, which is what the defense puts on to argue against the plaintiff case. Then we formulated our closing argument at the end. All of this just takes time and a lot of work.

The testimony of witnesses can be extensive, too. You may have taken a witness by deposition earlier in a case, and then you have to take them live. In effect, you basically have to redo everything that you did in the deposition.

This often holds true for the plaintiff, who is going to be asked to sit through a deposition at some point during litigation. The plaintiff will be asked to be taken live at the time of trial, where they’re going to be asked a lot of the same questions that they were asked at the deposition.

As a case develops, you’re faced with the problem of time passing and life intersecting with the law. A crash may happen on one date. The deposition happens on some date after that. And then the trial happens on some later date, even further out in time from the date of the crash. Changes occur with the plaintiff along the way. They may be getting better or worse after suffering injuries.

Life happens. But the law is not black and white. You can’t put people in boxes or categories if a situation or event is highly transitional.

There’s a line from Jerry McGuire that I love: “up at dawn, pride-swallowing siege.” That’s what it’s like to do this kind of work. We were up early each morning and worked very late at night. We had very little sleep. Family and friends can get pushed aside, because you just don’t have the ability to focus on anything but the trial itself.

In fact, this occurred my wife. Her birthday landed in the middle of this trial. I was able to peel away for dinner, and we had some friends and family over. I was able to share a few moments with them, and then I went back to work. That’s just the reality of what we deal with. We were able to celebrate more fully after the trial.

I share this with you because it’s the real dynamics of life and what happens with trials. As the plaintiff, every day we’re talking about what happened that day — giving updates and talking through strategy. And we’re trying to calm the nerves that are there for person who has given their trust and faith to a third party — a judge or a jury — and saying “you make the decision,” because the parties involved can’t simply agree.

 

Trials Are Unpredictable

Weird things can happen in trial. Our trial happened virtually. I’m very comfortable talking into a little dot on my computer screen, so the experience wasn’t uncomfortable for me. But for others, who aren’t comfortable with that — especially clients and experts who haven’t done it — it’s weird to have a conversation through a computer.

Technical difficulties weren’t really apparent. We got through that pretty smoothly.

If there was one real issue for our case, it’s that people can change their testimony at trial. Incredibly, an expert who testified just flat-out lied! On the stand! And we knew it! I suspect that that expert knew it, too.

At the end of the day, all you can do is try to prove your case through prior testimony and the evidence you’re presenting. You have to hope that the trier of fact — whether that’s the judge or the jury — picks up on what you’re saying and understands where lies occurred.

At the closing argument, you have the chance to explain your position a bit better. But, as it’s happening, you can be caught off-guard. You don’t expect people to change and do an about-face during trial. People usually stick to what they said.

Most people, I think, are trying to be honest. They at least believe, in their minds, that they are being honest. I say this because there are a lot of defense experts who say whatever the defendant wants them to say. We see the same reports and findings over and over. Do I think those experts are intentionally lying? I don’t know. Sometimes they just believe they’re serving another master, and their service to that master is more important than really being fair and reasonable. When this happens, you end up in trial.

Trials Are Where You Find Justice

Earlier, I talked a little bit about accountability. I believe accountability is a byproduct of justice. You go to court to try to resolve your case, simply because you can’t reach a fair resolution somewhere along the way.

Just to be clear, I’m talking about the civil justice system here. There’s also the criminal justice system, which operates independently. Civil and criminal are the two justice systems in this country. They have different ramifications and consequences, but they’re of equal importance.

I believe that our system is set up to be a justice system. There is a civil context and a criminal context, but justice is justice. Justice is accountability for what has happened.

We’ve seen this in the news and in society at large. George Floyd’s brother, Philonise, made an interesting point after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty. Speaking about the verdict, Philonise Floyd said, “It was accountability.”

Ultimately, this is what we’re looking for from the justice system. We’re looking for some sort of accountability. We want the wrongdoer — whether it’s a criminal or civil wrongdoer — to be held accountable for what happened. That’s why I think we find justice in the courtroom.

Sometimes we can’t find justice outside of the courtroom. We certainly can’t find it if the opposing party — the defendant — isn’t going to be fair, treat our client’s situation seriously, or consider what happened in our particular case. Needing to take a case to trial can be a serious consequence of the defendant’s actions.

And so, you sometimes have to take your case to the courtroom. Yet, in doing so, you face a variety of obstacles. For example, you may face consistent denials. I found this, and I actually used this in my closing argument that in psychology, denial is really just the refusal to accept reality. It’s an interesting way to define the word denial.

When defendants deny claims, they refuse to accept the reality that accidents or crashes cause injuries. If you step away from things and look at things from a third-party perspective, I think people can agree on certain basic reality that surrounds a claim. Yet, you still get a lot of denials from the defense, and those denials are not based in any sort of reality. Those become exposed at trial. That’s a great time to do so.

You may also deal with unfair value when taking a case to trial. Unfair value is what the defendant thinks the claim is worth, as opposed to what the plaintiff thinks the claim is worth. There’s a disagreement, to be sure.

---

---

It’s important to look our judicial system and how the justice system values a claim. We try to ascertain the fair and reasonable amount that should be paid to someone to make them whole — to compensate them for injuries that have occurred as a result of the crash.

An injury claim doesn’t need to be an automobile crash. An injury case could have a slip-and-fall context, or be the result of medical malpractice or vicious dog bite. Regardless of the injury context, fair and reasonable are important words.

Who Wins?

No one wins any sort of award by going to trial. No one wins any sort of contest by getting into litigation. No one walks away from a trial wishing it could happen again, because of the aftermath of a crash. In my entire time of practicing law, which is almost ten years, there hasn’t been one client who has ever said to me, “I would go through this again.”

We’ve had some fantastic outcomes from the cases we’ve managed. But not one of our clients has ever said to me they would go through their experience again. In other words, they would not give up their health and wellbeing — their physical health and mental health — for some sort of compensation, whether that’s some sort of check written by the defendants or otherwise.

Having gone through the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-21, people have developed a deeper understanding of how really important our health and wellbeing is. Now, more than ever, we value not just our physical health, but also our mental health.

The pandemic was a leveling factor. Everyone knew of someone who was affected in some way. Whether it was a friend, whether it was a family member, we had concern for people with preexisting underlying medical issues. I think that overall, our society — humanity, itself — began to look at our health as more important than anything else.

In turn, I think this new perspective has benefitted plaintiffs everywhere. I think people have been reminded of the fragility of life in many, many subtle ways. The people who sit on juries, coming out of what we have all experienced, I think will have a more compassion in their hearts. We are more acutely aware of what it means to be stripped of things without our consent — or, conversely, being involved in a situation that we did not choose to become involved in.

A Closing Argument

Although I will reaffirm that trials are no fun for everyone to a certain extent, there is a sense of purpose in getting into a trial, telling a story and having that story heard by others, and then reaching a resolution that is fair and reasonable. In a way, the process of going to trial allows for closure.

Until it gets resolved, a case can be like an open wound. It doesn’t really ever get fully resolved until you find some closure in and through our judicial system — through the justice that our Constitution allows. For me, this ability to provide support and achieve a sense of closure — and the sense of purpose that comes along with this role — is very powerful.

I’m proud of the work that we do. I’m thankful for the clients who trust us to handle their cases and and give us the freedom to do the work required to help them find justice.

---

---

To those defense attorneys, insurance companies, and defendants that might watch this, we’re not going anywhere. This is not just me speaking for myself and the attorneys at my firm. I am speaking for all plaintiffs everywhere and the attorneys who are proud of the representation they provide. We will continue to tell our stories so that people can be aware of what’s really happening.

What happens when a plaintiff dies during lawsuit? Arizona law requires that certain steps be taken to continue the claim in the event of a party’s death, on behalf of either the deceased plaintiff or defendant.

Unfortunately, attorneys find themselves in this situation from time to time. At Negretti & Associates, we’ve had to deal with this situation on numerous occasions. We have had plaintiffs — our clients — pass away during our pursuit of their claim. We have also experienced defendants passing away while we are pursuing a claim against them. When either instance transpires, a case is left in a peculiar state.

Here, we’ll provide an overview of how Arizona law addresses situations in which the plaintiff or defendant passes away before a case is resolved.

Rule 25 of Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 25 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states: “If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. Any party may file a motion to substitute. If the motion is not made within 90 days after the statement noting the death is served, the court must dismiss the claims by or against the decedent.” See Ariz. R. Civ. P Rule 25(a).

Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 25 goes onto to state that the decedents’ personal representative may be substituted as a plaintiff or defendant and that the action shall proceed in favor or against the remaining parties.

There is a lot to unpack in Rule 25 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Read the statute carefully to understand the requirements and the timeline you have to operate under.

Barragan v. Superior Court 469

In addition, there is Arizona case law on point to address with this situation. In Barragan v. Superior Court 469 P.2d 92 (Ariz. App. 1970), the Court further clarified Rule 25 by holding that a petitioner may open probate to have a special administrator appointed for the purpose of later substituting a personal representative for the estate of the decedent.

Questions to Consider

When a plaintiff or defendant dies during a lawsuit, the situation can spider-out in countless ways, causing everyone involved in a case unnecessary stress.

Questions that an attorney might want to consider include:

• Did the plaintiff or defendant die before you filed your lawsuit?
• What if the case was settled prior to the death of one of the parties?
• If you are an attorney representing a client, does your fee agreement allow you to talk to someone on behalf of your client, should he or she die?
• Did the party die after your filed, but prior to serving your lawsuit?
• On the plaintiff’s side, who is entitled to any proceeds that flow from resolving the claim?

If you find yourself in a situation where the plaintiff or defendant has died while a claim is in process, but you still have questions, give Negretti & Associates a call. We will walk you through the process to ensure that your claim can continue forward. You can reach as at (602) 531-3911 in Arizona. You can also contact us online or send us a text.

If you’ve experienced a dog bite in Arizona, you know that dog bites can be a very serious matter. If you believe that you have a case, it’s important to understand how your case fits within established dog bite laws in the Grand Canyon State.

For this reason, Negretti & Associates would like to offer this overview on dog bite laws in our state, along with our perspective on how an attorney can assist with a case. Our Arizona dog bite lawyers have represented people who have suffered serious injuries in dog attacks. We know dog bite laws and are ready to help you navigate your case. You don’t have to figure it out alone. Please contact us with questions about your case.

Strict Liability: No “One-Bite Rule” in Arizona

Arizona courts have made it clear that if you are bitten by a dog — even if it’s the first time in which a dog has bitten someone — you are entitled to be compensated for your injuries.

In the case Massey v. Colaric (1986), the court discussed the legal theory of “strict liability,” which means that the dog owner is liable — in other words, responsible — for injuries caused by his or her dog.

The court opinion of Massey v. Colaric observes, “In Arizona dogs do not get ‘one free bite.’ Owners are held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs’ actions and liability is imposed without regard to an owner’s knowledge of the dog’s viciousness.”

It some states, such as Colorado, a dog is allowed one bite before the owner of the dog is responsible for the injuries caused by a second bite. This is known in legal terms as the “one-bite rule.” This is not the case in Arizona.

Arizona’s law governing liability for dog bites, A.R.S. §11-1025, states that dog owners are responsible for paying damages to victims if they are legally on public or private property. This includes the dog owner’s property. The statute reads, “The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness.”

Let me give you some real-world scenarios to help you better understand how this Arizona law actually applies.

• You are jogging down a city street and a dog escapes from someone’s yard and bites you. Yes, the Arizona law would apply and you can recover damages for that. Note: This actually happened to me a few months ago. However, the dog couldn’t catch me to bite me because I ran really fast!
• An Amazon delivery driver is drops off a package at your house. Your dog gets out and bites the driver. Yes, the Arizona law would apply and the driver could recover damages for that. Note: My dogs go crazy when the Amazon folks show up at our house. It’s probably because my wife gets three to four deliveries a day.
• You are helping a friend move and you go into the house to grab a box. You turn the corner and your friend’s dog bites you. Yes, the Arizona law would apply and you can recover damages for that. Note: Don’t ever buy a pickup unless you intend to help everyone move.
• A landscaper is in your backyard cutting the grass. Your dog gets out and bites him. Yes, the Arizona law would apply and your landscaper can recover damages for that. Note: Take care of the people who take care of you.
• You are at the dog park and another dog chases down your dog and starts to attack her. You go to break up the fight and get bitten. Yes, the Arizona law would apply and you can recover damages for that. Note: Dog parks can be fun for your fur baby, but they can also be a danger zone. Be mindful of what’s going on in the dog park before you decide to let your pup off the leash to play.

Statute of Limitations: A One-Year Deadline

A key feature of Arizona dog bite laws is that there is a deadline to bring forth a case. This deadline is one year from the date of the dog bite. The legal term for this is “statute of limitations.”

If you do not bring your lawsuit forward within the one-year window, you lose the right to do so. This can be found in A.R.S. §12-541.

This law surprises some people because the normal deadline to bring a personal injury lawsuit is two years.

Why is there an accelerated deadline? The thinking is that since you do not have to prove liability for your claim, it should not take as long to resolve.

Provocation as a Defendant’s Argument

In Arizona there are really only two defenses that a dog owner can assert to avoid being responsible for their dog biting you.

The first defense is known as the “provocation” defense. In other words, the defense argues that the attacking dog was provoked.

An important Arizona dog bite law, A.R.S. §11-1027, states that: “Proof of provocation of the attack by the person injured shall be a defense to the action for damages. The issue of provocation shall be determined by whether a reasonable person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a dog.”

Proof of provocation is almost always used as a defense in dog bite cases. As experienced Arizona dog bite lawyers, we have encountered this defense many times. Sometimes it is applied in ways that would leave you scratching your head.

For example, we once represented a man who was walking his dog in his neighborhood. A neighbor’s dog got out and attacked both him and his dog.

Through his attorney, the owner of the attacking dog argued that because our client was on a sidewalk and his dog looked weak, the attacking dog was provoked. No joke! Defendants will literally do anything they can to avoid compensating people injured by dog bites.

Trespassing as a Defendant’s Argument

The second, but rarely used, defense in dog bite cases involves trespassing on someone else’s property. A.R.S. §13-1502 and §13-1504 define trespass as a physical intrusion or entry upon the land or property belonging to someone else wherein, causing damage to the property owner and/or his or her property.

In this situation, the dog owner of the attacking dog may not be responsible to you for your injuries.

To illustrate, in another case, our client — who was very tall — looked over his backyard fence into his neighbor’s yard. The neighbor had a dog that jumped up on the fence and bit our client’s face.

The defendants in that case claimed that our client trespassed when he looked over the fence. The judge didn’t buy the argument and ordered that the dog owner pay our client for injuries to his face.

Call Us with Questions About Your Dog Bite Case

Remember, in Arizona, dog bites have a short statute of limitations. This means you have a smaller window of time to get your claim resolved. Reach out today for a free case consultation with one of Negretti & Associates’ Arizona dog bite lawyers to discuss your options. Call us at (602) 531-3911 in Arizona, contact us online, or send us a text

In this week’s Legal Beagle Podcast, Jonathan Negretti interviews premise liability expert Todd Springer. They discusses what one should consider before pursuing a slip and fall case.

---

What does a premise liability expert do? What factors does an expert look at when evaluating an injury or accident? How are experts’ findings important to shaping the courses of premise liability cases?

For insights into these questions, Jonathan Negretti had a virtual chat with Todd Springer, a mechanical engineer and expert at Phoenix-based Augsperger Komm Engineering, a firm that specializes in forensic engineering, insurance claim analysis, product design, and expert witness testimony.

Springer provides expert consulting and testimony with regard to building envelope installation and performance, as well as exterior building system evaluations with regard to hail and wind damage. In addition, he regularly addresses building code, ADA compliance issues, and how pedestrians interact with their environments.

Jonathan Negretti: What does a premises liability expert do?

Todd Springer: I look at site conditions and different elements of buildings. Premises liability is anything to do with the premises. I have knowledge of certain systems — building components, and human factors — and I apply those.

I consider how a door is supposed to work. How hard is it supposed to be to open a door? What are walkway conditions supposed to be like, both in and around a building? What is required for stairways?

I look at certain maintenance items. How are floors supposed to be maintained? How are those maintenance activities supposed to be carried out?

Building codes govern construction, and third-party consensus standards establish standards of care. Those things are applied to different incidents that occur on a premise.

Jonathan Negretti: Let me give you a hypothetical premise liability case. Let’s say someone’s at a Burger King, and they slip and fall, and they get hurt. They then call an attorney. That attorney then reaches out to you to say, “Todd, I need to know if there’s a case here.” To the person that fell, they think, “There was a wet surface in Burger King. I fell. I’m hurt. It’s Burger King’s fault.” Is it that cut and dry?

Todd Springer: No. In my world I talk about all those things that we just discussed. From your world — as a lawyer — you talk about other things. It’s in the marriage of those two things that really answers your question.

The way I look at those instances is, there are basically three prongs, if you will. Was it a hazardous condition? Was it readily identifiable by someone? The part where it gets a little bit on the edge of my area is notice. In an attorney’s world someone has to have known about this condition or, I believe, created it.

If I were there as a customer, and I got a drink, then spilled it — and you walked behind me and you slipped — as I understand it, it’s very hard to say that’s Burger King’s fault.

Jonathan Negretti: How come? I think you’re right, but explain why.

Todd Springer: The interpretation I have is the notice. Is it Burger King’s standard of care to follow every single customer around and make sure they never spill?

Rather, there are general standards of care that every organization should have some system in place for ensuring that these things are minimized. They’re mitigated to some extent. In grocery stores, they’ll have store sweeps. More often, it’ll be in the produce section. Less often, it’s around the store.

At Burger King, how often are those guys out walking the lobby looking for spills, picking up trash, you know? Was the accident in the middle of a lunch rush?

Where it all gets super fun, when I talk to every client, is the term “reasonable.” The term reasonable gets thrown around. What is reasonable? To be able to discuss the factors that go into that is what I do.

Well, there are things that people can do and things that they don’t do. They can have a schedule. If you look at a log, you can see they were there at 7:58 a.m., and the next time was 9:14 a.m. But that might be their breakfast rush and they’re supposed to do [the sweep] every hour. Well, they were an hour and 17 minutes apart. So, did they fail? What’s reasonable?

Jonathan Negretti: When you look at reasonableness in premise liability cases, do you look at it from the standpoint of an objective finding, versus a subjective finding? What’s reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. As an expert, do you live in that world of objectivity?

Todd Springer: When I started, I would ask whether or not a condition was unreasonably dangerous. As I went along, I started looking into where that came from. My current understanding, if my memory is accurate today, is that it’s a jury instruction.

I can say there was no reason for this condition to exist. If someone puts a trap door in a floor, there’s no reason for that. Someone is going to get hurt. You could say it’s unreasonably dangerous.

As far as the hypothetical Burger King incident is concerned, talking about the factors that go into that really lead up to that. If the store were two-and-a-half hours apart on its store sweep log, and then you saw a video where two employees are on Facebook for 30 minutes blowing off the store sweep, I think, that’s an easy one to explain. That’s the first thing that popped in my head.

I take all the data I can, explain the significance of it, and apply it to codes and standards of care. Then I can discuss human factors. Are people multitasking? Are they going down a stairway with a heavy floral pattern with grand, distracting views, and then misstep? Those things have been studied. I can talk about those from a scientific perspective.

Jonathan Negretti: If a typical person has fallen, and they want to understand whether they have a premise liability case, give me a few thoughts on what you would tell that person directly. Maybe they don’t have an attorney and just want to know, “Do I have a case or did I just mess up?” What would you tell those people?

Todd Springer: This is rough one, because we’re very emotionally driven creatures, I think. The first thing I would say is, “Think about what you were doing — your actions on that day, leading up to that event, and how safe you were being. Were you texting and driving? Were you looking at yourself in a mirror as you walked into a planter? If so, was it really the planter’s fault?”

And then, think about if you owned the business. People don’t want to do this, all the time. If you’re saying there’s $50,000 or more on the line, take a minute and think about it. If I owned the business, would it make sense that I [as the customer] shouldn’t be allowed to do that? Or should I view that as my fault?

You know, if someone slips on a spilled soda at Burger King, and I own the Burger King, is that my responsibility?

Take a second and look at the case from both sides. Inevitably, a defense attorney will be hired. They will defend their client, because that’s their job. They are going to find every way they know how to poke a hole in your case and find you at fault.

So, if you can think about some of those ways where you might be at fault, that will give you a good perspective on whether it wasn’t all on them, but perhaps 50/50: “Maybe I wasn’t being too reasonable — the guy was mopping, and there were no signs up. … That doesn’t make sense. … It’s really easy to put signs up. … Just mop half the floor at a time, put some signs up around that half and then go over it.”

Just think it through. Write it down. Draw a picture. These are the fundamentals of what I do. What do we know? What don’t we know? That will give you some insight.

Jonathan Negretti: If you’re a young attorney doing personal injury work and you may not have had any premise liability cases, but you want to get into this area, what would you tell that attorney to be aware of, or to think about with these types of cases?

Todd Springer: The biggest thing I would tell them is that you need to know an expert. There are some people who just don’t use them. I don’t know what the pros and cons are, financially. That’s ultimately the attorney’s game at the end of the day — the dollars.

You need to know how honest your expert is with you. The way I would do that is, I would make up a junk case and call an expert: “I’ve got two cases that I want to talk to you about.” And I would tell them about the real case and hear what he or she had to say. And then I’d say, “OK, I’ve got another one. … This guy’s walking, and he steps off the curb, but someone honked their horn as they’re going by. So, this business that owns the curb …” Be creative. Think of something.

Jonathan Negretti: I would tell all young lawyers to get an expert early. Have conversations. Find people you trust. Ask those questions. Pay for the evaluations. It’s not a big deal. If you have to pay for it, it’s worth it. It will save you a boatload.

Todd Springer: I think a lot of times, a seasoned expert can give you a good idea early on [about a case]. Now, when you go on to due diligence, things can change all the time — someone can be deposed, and something comes out. It doesn’t take a long time looking at a few facts and digging in for a little bit.

Jonathan Negretti: Don’t be afraid to pick up the phone and have a conversation and learn what you don’t know. Don’t think you know it all — because you certainly don’t. It was good that I learned this early in my career, not late in my career. It’s helped me on a lot of cases that we have not taken.

I’ve gone as far as to share some of the analysis that you’ve given us with potential clients, when we turn down the opportunity to represent them, because we don’t think there’s a case — after you evaluate it and we talk, and we kind of debate whether there’s enough there. I think potential clients appreciate that. I walk them through what your analysis, and I say “Look, this is why there may be some challenges. You’re certainly welcome to go get a second opinion, or a third. I don’t think that there’s a reason to pursue this because of X, Y, and Z.”

Being honest with clients — up front and just candid with them, I will say, “Look, we talked to our expert. He evaluated it and there’s just nothing here.”

I would much rather tell the client early on, once we discover that there isn’t a case to pursue, that we’re not going to take it any further, than to tell them way later, or have a really bad outcome at trial — if it ends up there. I would rather be honest. I think that’s probably why we work well together.

You do a good job of just being honest with me about what to expect with the case and say, “Look, I don’t know if you have what you’re looking for here.” I’m just wondering why you have taken that approach to your work.

Todd Springer: Well, number one, that’s how I was trained. And it’s kind of the golden rule, too.

There are some gray areas in all of this. It’s never black and white, or you wouldn’t need people to talk about stuff. You explore those gray areas. You can go down different paths of logic, thought, and reasoning. Every once in a while, you’ll do that, and someone else will come along later in the case — when it’s not so fun — and they’ll bring up some stuff you didn’t think about. And then you’re sitting there going, “Hey, I didn’t you know.” That’s never fun.

And I always joke that I’m not retiring soon. It’s way better to work on a more solid case. From the bottom of all of that comes who we are as people. Am I really in this to try to help you build a case? Or is it better if I were to tell you all this stuff? Like I said, a lot of times someone else is going to point these things out later.

If you believe that you’ve experienced injury or damages related to a premise liability case, reach out to Negretti & Associates for a free consultation with our legal team. Call us at (602) 531-3911 in Arizona, (619) 777-3370 in California, or (720) 636-3444 in Colorado. You can also contact us online or send us a text.

What are the five most famous product liability cases of all time? Negretti & Associates has curated this list of product liability cases that have grabbed headlines, captivated the public’s attention, and continue to be remembered years after going to trial.

When you use a product, you put your trust in the company that produced that product. You expect the product to work as intended.

Unfortunately, sometimes products are simply defective, and serious injury may result. Perhaps the product wasn’t designed correctly, or there may have been a problem manufacturing it. Sometimes, manufacturers simply fail to provide adequate warning about how their products are to be used.

All of these outcomes fall under the umbrella term of product liability cases, or what are also called product defect cases.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, a.k.a. “The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit”

Probably the single most famous and misunderstood product failure case involved one person suing McDonald’s over a spilled cup of scalding-hot coffee. The case was a media sensation, and was the subject of a documentary in 2011, aptly titled Hot Coffee.

On February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her 1989 Ford Probe with hot coffee on her lap, after going through a McDonald’s drive-through window. Her grandson was the driver of her car, which did not have cup holders.

While the car was parked, so that Ms. Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee, Ms. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees. As she removed the lid of the cup, Ms. Liebeck pulled the far side of the lid toward her. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of scalding-hot coffee on her lap. Ms. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and kept it clinging to her skin.

Ms. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on her pelvis and underwent skin grafting. She was hospitalized for eight days. She was partially disabled for two years after the incident, while she received medical attention for her burns. Her pelvis was left permanently disfigured.

Ms. Liebeck brought a claim against McDonald’s for failure to warn of the extremely overheated coffee that they were serving to customers.

Outcome: McDonald’s dragged out the case for years, and appealed the original verdict of $2.8 million dollars. Ms. Liebeck eventually settled for something significantly lower amount: $640,000.

The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit is easily one of the most famous product liability cases. Unfortunately, the plaintiff in that case, Stella Liebeck, was vilified unnecessarily; some called it a frivolous case. In this video, Jonathan Negretti sets the record straight on why this was a worthy lawsuit.

---

General Motors Faulty Ignition Switch Case

From 2000 through 2004, General Motors produced vehicles with faulty ignition switches, which would shut off engines while driving, thereby disabling airbags from inflating. The design defect led to at least 124 deaths and nearly 300 injuries.

However, the story doesn’t end there. An attorney in Georgia, Lance Cooper, discovered that GM committed fraud by covering up the ignition switch defect for more than 13 years. GM had secretly redesigned the switch without changing the part number to try to avoid being caught.

Outcome: GM agreed to pay more than $900 million dollars to settle cases related to deaths and injuries stemming from the faulty ignition switches. What’s more, the auto manufacturer recalled more than 30 million vehicles worldwide in 2014.

Takata Airbag Case

When you mention airbags, most people think about massive recall involving the Takata airbags. In 2014, Takata, one of the largest airbag manufacturers in the world, began notifying auto manufacturers of a defect that would result in millions of automobile recalls.

More than 40 million vehicles are said have Takata airbags. The company’s defective airbags have been linked to 16 deaths and hundreds of injuries over many years.

Takata manufactured faulty airbags dating back to the early 2000s. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the airbags had defective inflators that can rupture on deployment, shooting metal fragments at vehicle occupants.

Shocking information has come to light regarding what the Japanese auto parts manufacturer knew about potential defects in its airbags more than decade before any recall was made.

According to two former Takata employees, in 2004 the company retrieved 50 airbags from scrapyards and conducted secret tests on them. In two of the tests, the steel inflators cracked, causing the parts to rupture. Engineers were so alarmed by the findings that they immediately began developing fixes in anticipation of a recall. However, no recall was made at the time. For Takata, the legal implications have been astounding.

Outcome: Takata has been ordered to pay $1 billion dollars to automakers and those injured due to its airbags. In 2017, Takata filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States, and its surviving assets were purchased by its largest competitor.

Bullock v. Phillip Morris: Big Tobacco on Trial

In 2002, tobacco giant Phillip Morris was ordered to pay punitive damages of a staggering $28 billion to lung cancer sufferer Betty Bullock, 64, of Missouri. The jury in the case accepted Ms. Bullock’s claim that her tobacco addiction was caused by the company’s failure to warn her of the risks of smoking.

Ms. Bullock had started smoking in the 1950s when she was 17. She argued that Phillip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes with a widespread misinformation campaign that began in the 1950s.

Ms. Bullock, whose cancer had spread to her liver, was awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages. The case was appealed and eventually settled for $28 million, or one-tenth of a percent of the original jury award.

Bullock v. Phillip Morris was a watershed moment for the tobacco industry. It was the single largest verdict of an individual plaintiff in history.

Outcome: As a result of the verdict, individual lawsuits flooded the courts across the country. Attorneys general, representing each state, had already negotiated a master settlement agreement with four of the largest tobacco companies. The agreement effectively changed public policy and set aside billions of dollars dedicated to healthcare costs.

Dow Corning Silicone Breast Implants

In the late 1970s and into the 1990s, more than 170,000 women suffered rupture, leakage and illnesses associated with Dow Corning silicone breast implants.

Since its founding in 1943 as a joint venture between Dow Chemical and Corning Glass, Dow Corning grew to become one of the world’s leading manufacturers of silicone-based products. The company began producing silicone breast implants once there became a large demand for these products in the medical industry.

Evidence showed that Dow Corning personnel were aware of the risks associated with their silicone implants, and that they knew about the production problems with their products on the market.

The Food and Drug Administration introduced mandatory problem-reporting programs in the 1980s. This gave implant manufacturers the opportunity to recognize and analyze any complaints and potential problems associated with their products. As a result, there was no mandatory recalls or penalties for product defects before that time.

Dow Corning found itself deep in litigation concerning their products and raw materials. Its legal troubles grew to an international scale. In 1993, the company entered into an agreement with different plaintiffs who claimed they had suffered injuries from the defective silicone breast implant products.

In May of 1995, facing 20,000 lawsuits and 410,000 potential claims filed in the global settlement, Dow Corning filed a Chapter 11 reorganization with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The corporation also proceeded to seek further injunctions against the litigation for medical products they produced and distributed. Protection orders were requested against implant plaintiffs who had ongoing trials against related defendant corporations, in an effort to protect themselves from later lawsuits.

Eventually, a jury in Louisiana found that Dow Corning knowingly deceived women by hiding the health risks of silicone used in breast implants.

Outcome: Dow Corning entered into a $3.2 billion payout to settle claims made against them. Dow Chemical assumed full ownership of Dow Corning on June 1, 2016.

The Bottom Line

When corporations try to cover-up defects in their products and fail to warn users of the hazards of using their products, product liability lawyers are ready to stand up for those who have experienced damages, injuries, and loss of life.

If you believe that you’ve experienced injury or damages related to a product defect, reach out to Negretti & Associates for a free consultation with our legal team. Call us at (602) 531-3911 in Arizona, (619) 777-3370 in California, or (720) 636-3444 in Colorado. You can also contact us online or send us a text.