We receive press releases every once in a while about plaintiff's firms and their huge jury verdicts. Very rarely, however, do we receive tips regarding defense victories. Perhaps this is because headlines reading "Defense Attorney Rescues Client From $10 Million Frivolous Lawsuit" just aren't as exciting as "Plaintiff Gets $10 Million After Slipping On Banana Peel."
Defense attorneys are a bit like the soccer goalies of our profession. When they do their job well, they pretty much go unrecognized. However, when they screw up, everybody is quick to blame them.
Recently we received a tip regarding a big defense win, and we want to give a little credit to the other side of the bar. The case was Huff v. Corpus, here's what we were able to gather regarding the facts:
Plaintiff had four neck surgeries after a car accident caused by defendant, and claimed he was disabled as a result. Liability was admitted, so the dispute was about causation. Attorney Bob Vannah asked for a total of $9 million during closing - $5 million plus for the disabled husband; $2 million plus for his wife’s consortium claim.
$2 million for loss of consortium? Crikey! Was he a porn star?
So, what did Plaintiff end up with? Nada. Goose egg. Nil. Nuffin. $0.0 Million.
We offer a hardy congratulations to the defense team on the case, led by Thomas Winner over at Atkin Winner & Sherod. Vannah is no spring chicken, so good on ya for the victory, Tom.
Thanks, Tipster!
Nice smack-down on Vannah! We need more of those. He superb with spine cases.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a case number?
ReplyDeleteWait, poor guy is crippled and his wife is left without the physical intimacy that defines a marriage, and we are supposed to be happy? Vannah is no saint, but his poor client, not to mention all his surgeons, deserve some $$$.
ReplyDeleteWas Kavins part of the surgical team?
Did Bob trot out his "i was browsing at Barnes and Noble, thinking about my client's plight, and came across this book" closing?
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of item I enjoy over here at WWL.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is only baseless speculation, the Vanman must have repelled the jurors--it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where there's no sufficient causal link unless Dr. Nick Rivera did 1 of the surgeries.
And yes, I do consider this a proper venue for baseless speculation--the more baseless, the same.
ReplyDeletewas it $0 for the LOC claim only, or $0 for the whole case, including the BI? If it was total, it seems a little unjust (though I admittedly don't know all the facts). If liability was stipulated to, then Plaintiff should have received at least SOMETHING-even if it was just enough to cover the initial doctor visit to get checked out. And defense attorneys talk about crazy runaway juries who ignore facts!
ReplyDeleteAlthough injured Plaintiffs deserve to be made whole, this just shows what happens when they get greedy. I doubt the total recovery was $0. They probably recovered demonstrable medical expenses. But $2mil for the wife’s LOC claim? Yikes!
ReplyDelete9:13 here:
ReplyDeleteI agree with 9:22.
The Great Carnac here. If liability was conceded, I see a huge motion for additur in the future.
ReplyDeleteNot only does pltf get nothing, he is likely on the hook for Deft's costs. NRCP 68. Double suck there.
ReplyDeleteNice. Very nice. Reminds me of one of cases I heard about this summer - minimum Plaintiff was asking for $12,000,000 plus punitive and had asserted upwards of $70,000,000 (though that was likely a dream win scenario). At trial, Plaintiff got a giant goose egg - $0, even after Plaintiff's counsel argued to the jury the plaintiff was entitled to a minimum of his initial investment (couple hundred thousand dollars).
ReplyDeleteToo bad good defense wins don't get the publicity.
On another note, liability for an automobile accident doesn't equate liability for the neck injury and subsequent surgeries. There are MANY a PI plaintiff that have legitimately been in a MVA, which was not their fault. However, many a PI plaintiff ends up trying to pin preexisting injuries or ailments on the MVA. The accident just becomes and easy scapegoat.
Don't know the facts of this case, but this appears to be an awesome smack down from the defendants point of view.
Liability was conceded, but there was long a history of prior injury AND the Plaintiff was a total meth head. The jury simply did not like/believe the Plaintiff, plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteCase Number: A491746
It doesn't matter if the plaintiff was John Wayne Gacey-if liability was agreed to, then the jury should have unequivocally found for Plaintiff. If they didn't find causation then they should have just found for Plaintiff but awarded them $0 (or, perhaps the amount for the initial consultation as stated above). The fact that they gave a defense verdict is absurd, and indicative that they likely ignored the jury instruction saying that any stipulations are to be considered as such.
ReplyDelete10:54 - David Ball, damages writer says juries reward "Good guys" and punish "Bad guys."
ReplyDeleteIt is a feat to get an award with an unlikable plaintiff.
I completely agree. You can have the greatest case in the world, but if the jury hates the plaintiff, they will find any reason possible to give him/her nothing.
ReplyDelete11:21 is correct. If the jury thinks the plaintiff is a liar or scum, even if the defense stipulates to some damages, the odds are that there will be a Zero.
ReplyDeleteThe surprise here is that Vannah took such an ugly plaintiff. He can afford to be a bit choosier.
@11:05
ReplyDeletePlaintiff has the burden to establish the accident (to which liability was conceded) caused the injuries that formed the basis for the demand for compensation. If the jury concludes that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof and persausion on the element of causation, they could not find for the plaintiff since he hadn't met his burden to establish all of the elements of his claim.
12:15 is exactly right. Plenty of accidents happen where nobody is injured(believe it or not). In those cases, do you think the party not at fault is automatically entitled to be compensated? The party not at fault must establish damages and causation. Otherwise, we just have duty and breach.
ReplyDeleteIn trial, the scariest part is when your client takes the stand. Far and few between are the saintly ones who do what you tell them to.
ReplyDelete1:43, is there really such a being as a client who does what you tell them? Oh Brave New Attorney That Has Such Clients In His Practice.
ReplyDeleteWho knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
ReplyDeleteHelp, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
at 11:05, just because the parties stipulated to liability doesn't mean the jury MUST find for the Plaintiff. One element of negligence is damages. If you can't prove damages, Plaintiff hasn't met their burden.
ReplyDeleteVannah thinks he's god's gift to trial practice. The truth is, he's handed cases gift wrapped by attorneys in town who are too scared to try cases for themselves. It seems the cases he does manage from start to finish aren't as good as he thinks they are, at least lately.
Plus, you have to pick the right jury. Not everyone is turned on by 3 piece suits and gator boots.
6:37--meant to say causation, not damages.
ReplyDeleteWith Vannah it's never about his client; it's always about him.
ReplyDelete1:26 just aced the torts essay. Seriously though, the jury instruction does say that causation is an element. Obviously, this jury recognized that there was no connection between the accident and all the surgeries.
ReplyDeleteAre asserting that Vannah is not a good trial lawyer? I can point to boatloads of jury verdicts that say otherwise, and they're not all in Nevada. Sure he gets most of his cases from other attorneys, but most of them are received right out of the claims stage, and his office handles them from step one in lit. For you to argue that he does not know how to well litigate a case exposes your predispositions. There's nothing wrong with not liking the guy-hell most people don't-but its a little disingenuous to assert he is not a good lawyer.
ReplyDeleteAs for the people talking about causation and damages-thank you for the lesson on negligence. The point is, with liability stipulated, the minimum a jury should do is award nominal damages. Even most defense attorneys will admit that a plaintiff entitled to go and get checked out after an accident. So, at a minimum, the jury should have awarded at least $120 or so to get a first evaluation.
@9:25 - Why should the jury award the Plaintiff anything just because liability was stipulated too?
ReplyDeleteIsn't the purpose of damages to make a person "whole?" If the MVA resulted in property damage and the Plaintiff was compensated for any property damage as a result of the accident, and his only other claims are personal injuries, which he alleges to be a result of the MVA, then the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the injuries were CAUSED by the MVA, not just that the liable party had a duty and breached his duty.
If Plaintiff failed to establish causation, he's out. Doesn't matter that liability was stipulated too. If he was otherwise made whole and the only remaining claims were in relation to his personal injuries, then a non-award is appropriate and there is absolutely no basis for a nominal monetary award.
Why is it so many Plaintiff's attorneys feel that no matter how bad or how frivolous their clients claims are that they should just get *something* for being on the top of the vs.? If you and your client fail to meet the legal standards, you loose. Plain and simple. Just bringing a lawsuit doesn't entitle anyone to anything. No wonder this profession is where it's at today.
"Just bringing a lawsuit doesn't entitle anyone to anything."
ReplyDeleteWow, thank you for enlightening us. I believe 9:25's point was that Plaintiff at least is entitled to the amount of the initial doctor consultation. Even if it was only $120, a trivial amount, it is the principle. The person had a right to get examined for any injuries. Whether there were any injuries or not, this examination/bill is a "damage," which should have been awarded to the Plaintiff.
Way to go Tommy!
ReplyDeleteSay what you will about juries, elements of negligence and the poor guy Vannah represented.
ReplyDeleteHow many readers with legal training have taken this plaintiff's lawyer to trial and zipped him?
I'm proud of you, Tom. You got a great result for YOUR client.
anneanneanneanneanneanneanneanne
Are you all really assuming that a plaintiff in Las Vegas (with Vannah as their attorney no less) is not willing to undergo frivolous, unnecessary surgeries simply to increase the value of their case so their attorney can stand in front of a jury and ask for $9 mil with a straight face? Read up a few stories about Kabins kiddos. Welcome to Las Vegas. Sweet win to the Winner for taking out Big Bad Bob Vannah.
ReplyDeleteSour grapes from the haters I see. He loses one, and the dogs jump. Perhaps wishful thinking from the defense bar, dreaming they will be as lucky as Tom when they take their case against Bob? Hmm? Hmm?
ReplyDeleteGood luck, and keep dreamin' kiddies. He's got a track record of kicking the snot out of defense lawyers and their clients (i.e. the REAL racketeers in this state). Mend your wound Bob, regroup, and stick it in their eye in the next case!
High five Tom. You are the man.
ReplyDeleteWhy not take all this for what it really means? Tom Winner out-lawyered a really good PI lawyer this time around, based in large part because the jury hated the plaintiff who was (reportedly) caught by Tom in his lies, misrepresentations and over-reachings. That is fatal for any Plaintiff, even where liability for the incident is admitted. And certainly just because liability for an incident is admitted, there's no admission that whatever happened caused injury...and here, the jury bought that argument...9 million times over.
ReplyDelete