Robert S. Glassman’s client was driving a motorcycle over the posted speed limit when a city truck cut in front of him from a side street. In the ensuing crash, the cyclist was injured. 

On this episode of Trial Lawyers University, hear how Robert presented the facts about his client’s speeding during jury selection to weed out jurors who didn’t think they could be impartial when deciding who was to blame for the accident.

Robert also shares how he relied on the testimony of an expert witness to prove that – even if his client had been going the posted speed limit – the accident still would have occurred, and the injuries would have been the same. 

Ultimately, the jury found that Robert’s client was speeding, but that the city truck was to blame for the accident. The verdict: $11 million to Robert’s client.

Train and Connect with the Titans

☑️ Robert S. Glassman | LinkedIn | Email | Instagram

☑️ Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP | LinkedIn | Instagram | X | Facebook

☑️ TLU VEGAS

☑️ Trial Lawyers University

☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos

☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

• When to tell prospective jurors the facts that could harm your client.
• How Robert’s concession that his client was speeding changed the mood during jury selection and resulted in striking 26 jurors.
• When speaking with jurors about how they feel about the client speeding, ask if they can be impartial while hearing the rest of the evidence.
• When potential jurors express their opinions, ask other jurors if they feel the same way.
• Why a plaintiff’s lawyer can’t go straight to the question of whether a juror can be impartial. 
• How to thank the jurors for every opinion they express without becoming combative.
• When suing the government, ask prospective jurors if they worry that making big-verdict awards will increase taxes for everyone.
• How to transition from questions about taxes to caps for awards against a government entity.
• How Robert proved his client would have suffered the same injuries if he had driven the speed limit.
• How the jury concluded that the motorcycle driver was negligent for speeding, but that speeding did not cause the accident.

Produced and Powered by LawPods