Recently T. Joseph Seward, the managing partner of the Firm, tried three cases representing the defendant municipalities and their officers in an eight week span.  In all three cases the Plaintiffs will walk away without getting any money from Mr. Seward's clients.  Mr. Seward’s use of technology during the trial process helped him obtain favorable results for his clients. Research indicates that jurors are more likely to retain information presented at trial if they see, as well as hear, key details. Mr. Seward uses tools, such as videotaped depositions and electronic displays, to help communicate with judges and juries so they retain important information and are persuaded by his argument.

 

In the first case, a young man was riding his bicycle down a busy street. The man fell off his bicycle and hurt his arm and elbow. He sued the municipality and the non-residential owner of the property where he fell off his bicycle claiming heavy trucks crossing the sidewalk caused the sidewalk to sink and for him to fall. 

 

Mr. Seward, representing the municipality, videotaped the deposition of the Plaintiff. During the deposition, the man had full use of his “injured” arm. The doctor testifying for the Plaintiff claimed the Plaintiff had limitations in how he could move his arm. But after watching Mr. Seward’s videotaped deposition of the Plaintiff, the doctor agreed   that the Plaintiff had full functional use of his arm. 

 

During case evaluation the Plaintiff was offered a settlement of $26,000, which he rejected. The jury found the Plaintiff 45% negligent and awarded him $9,000 for pain and suffering and $1,715 for economic loss. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s legal fees, which are greater than the amount he received from the jury’s verdict. Bottom line, he will end up owing money to the defendants. 

 

The next case was a high-profile case that made the local news and newspapers. A group of non-Caucasian men were coming into neighborhoods, and the neighbors voiced their concerns to the police because they thought these men were drug dealers, scouting homes for potential robberies and/or abducting children. Undercover officers were sent out to the neighborhood. The officers spotted a suspicious activity (moving goods from one vehicle to another) and pulled over the vehicle. According to the Plaintiffs, the officers ordered the Plaintiffs out of their vehicles, held a gun to one of them and used racial slurs. 

 

During the trial, Mr. Seward showed the court that the only evidence the Plaintiff had of the police officers negative actions were their own testimony. On the other hand, many neighbors came to court and told the jury the officers acted professionally. What persuaded the jury was an in-car video from a scout car showing a calm situation, not the hectic scene painted by the Plaintiffs. The court and jury agreed that the officers acted reasonably.  Mr. Seward recently filed a motion asking the Court to order the Plaintiffs to reimburse the community costs and attorney fees.  We will keep you posted on the results. 

 

The final case tried by Mr. Seward involved a woman who was evicted from her home for not paying rent. She claimed the court officer who evicted her was verbally and physically abusive. Once again, Mr. Seward videotaped her deposition. The Plaintiff claimed she could not move her left arm and had a torn rotator cuff. 

 

In Mr. Seward’s opening statements at the trial, he showed a clip of the Plaintiff stating   that her arm was injured so badly she could not move it. The very next clip he showed was of the woman using her arm during her deposition. Throughout the trial Mr. Seward showed further evidence on a 10 foot electronic display. The jury’s verdict was that the court officer acted appropriately.

 

After the trial, Mr. Seward spoke with the jury who said the professional display of visual evidence shown by Mr. Seward was very convincing and easy to follow. According to the jury, the Plaintiff’s credibility was destroyed in opening statements when they viewed the two clips from her deposition.  The Plaintiff’s attorney, on the other hand, used individual handouts, which the jury thought was least effective.

 

The Firm’s use of technology during all stages of litigation helps educate judges, juries and arbitrators, which results in obtaining favorable results for all clients.