What turns an ordinary premises case into a $2.7 million verdict? Strategy.

When a 68-year-old woman tripped over a fallen curbside sign outside Target, Vern Ready didn’t just argue negligence — he built a case around corporate decision-making. Discovery revealed no wind-resistance policy, no inspection protocol, and no meaningful response to employee reports about falling signs. That allowed him to frame the case as “corporation versus customer” — and when employees testified, “corporation versus employee.”

In this episode of Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection with host Keith Fuicelli, Vern breaks down the tactical decisions behind the verdict: saving his cross of the defense doctor for trial, telling the medical story through the client’s lived experience instead of clinical jargon, using a simple ELMO instead of flashy demonstratives, and positioning damages after a $500,000 pre-suit offer.

The jury asked for a calculator — and returned $2.7 million.

A masterclass in framing, restraint, and trusting the jury to connect the dots.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Vern Ready | LinkedIn

☑️ Ready Law on Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Vern's client, a 68-year-old woman, tripped over a fallen portable curbside sign outside a Target, finished her shopping trip, and ultimately required two surgeries for ulnar nerve damage in her right hand.
2. Vern framed the case as "corporation versus customer" and “corporation versus employee” when Target's own employees testified that the company provided no guidance about wind resistance, sign maintenance, or safety procedures.
3. Discovery revealed that nobody at Target had checked the manufacturer's wind resistance specifications for the signs, no policy existed for bringing them in during wind, and nobody responded to internal reports about falling signs.
4. Rather than deposing the defense doctor, Vern saved his ammunition for trial, where he caught the doctor mid-testimony reading only half a sentence from a second-opinion record that actually supported his client's future surgical needs.
5. In opening, Vern told the medical story from the patient's perspective — not through clinical terminology — by asking, "What makes a person agree to have surgery to try to fix something?"
6. Instead of flip charts, Vern used an ELMO when writing – “just like an overhead projector.” The technique landed well with jurors, he says.
7. The jury asked for a calculator during deliberations and ultimately awarded $2.7 million — more than five times the $500,000 pre-suit offer that Target had made.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.

Welcome to the Colorado

Trial Lawyer Connection,

where Colorado trial lawyers share

insights from their latest cases. Join me,

Keith Fuicelli, as we uncover

the stories, strategies,

and lessons from recent Colorado trials

to help you and your clients achieve

justice in the courtroom. The

pursuit of justice starts now.

Howdy everyone,

Keith Fuicelli here for another episode

of the Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection

Podcast. And this one is a doozy.

Super excited to have Vern Ready

on to talk about a truly amazing

$2.7 million verdict against

Target on a slip and fall case.

And if that doesn't sort of pique your

interest and want to know how on earth

did you do that, let me give you a

little more. This is in federal court.

This is a very interesting

liability and damages side case and

just an expertly tried case

by Vern. And with that,

welcome to the show, Vern.

Thanks so much and thanks for having

me on. I really appreciate it.

The list of people you've had on is pretty

amazing. Just glad to be among them.

Now. I love that.

Thank you for sort of saying that because

I hope that when young lawyers listen

to this, they think, "I can't wait

to get that verdict to come on.

" And then I hope when

they get that verdict,

they reach out and everybody comes

on and talks about what worked,

what didn't work. And

really what I'm hoping,

and I know that you and I spoke about

this a little bit before we went on,

that when people listen to these episodes,

it empowers them. And they think,

"You know what? I could do that. I got

my case. Let's roll." Was that sort of,

I know you had mentioned that you went

back and sort of listened to some of the

episodes before today.

Yeah.

Is that true to you?

Well, it is absolutely true.

I will blame you for figuring out

my voice memo app because as I'm

listening and doing other

things, I'm just like, "Ah,

I've got to get a note on

that before I forget it.

" And there's just so much value that

has come from listening to other people

and talk about what went well and of

course what didn't. So that's great.

It does feel like I've heard

this on other podcasts. I mean,

this is a golden age of information.

So for young lawyers that are out there

that want to be trial lawyers,

their world is your oyster as far as

learning what to do and how to do it,

which is that on a previous episode,

I talked about using that Apple

voice memo feature because A,

we get these random thoughts in the middle

of the night or when we're on a walk

or a jog. It's a great

way to put pen to paper,

but I really like wordsmithing my opening.

Not that I memorize it or read

it, but wordsmith my opening,

recorded in voice memos and then forced

myself to listen to myself and I hear

how annoying I can be at times and

real pronunciation and I think of it.

So I'm glad I.

Helped. Right. Do you rehearse a lot

because you say you don't memorize,

but I mean, I rehearse a ton before.

That's a great question. I'm going to

share because everybody does it different.

And to me, we're talking

opening statement.

And.

I definitely believe opening statement

is the most important piece of the trial

and it's the part you can't prepare the

most for. Some people that are amazing,

world renowned trial lawyers would

never memorize it and I don't do that,

but this is what I do.

I will spend a lot of time actually

writing word for word out what

in my mind is a perfect opening. And it

is like from the beginning to the end,

and then I will record it. And inevitably,

I will end up going through about 10

different versions of that opening,

wordsmithing the crap out of it, right?

Yeah.

And then I sort of have triggers for

like the roadmap of where I want to go

becomes encered in my brain.

Then I can get up and

I feel like, frankly,

the opening part of it is memorized, the

catch, what did the defendant do wrong?

There are definitely parts of it that

are memorized, but at least for me,

I have found that I can do the opening

that way and be engaging and authentic

and have great eye contact. Obviously,

I don't have any notes and I will

use a PowerPoint selectively so that

you're not using it as a crutch. At

least that's how I do it. So tell us,

what's your procedure? How

do you go about your opening?

Then we'll talk about

what you did in this case.

As far as getting ready, I would say it's

pretty similar to what you described.

And then I just go over it like a whole

bunch of times, just talking out loud,

walking around my house, making

a sandwich, doing openings.

And.

Doing different parts of the

trials. And I'll do that.

And I think it just makes me personally

feel more comfortable so that when I am

in front of the jury, it can be

more natural. It's not like, "Oh,

where was I going to go next?

And how best to say this?

And did I get everything in? "

I wouldn't call it memorization.

It's more like just practice and practice

and practice and practice so that you

feel super comfy by the time you're up

there doing it and you just feel like you

can be more natural and you can just

stand there and talk to people and make,

like you said, good eye contact.

You can respond to people because

you feel like I've got this piece,

that opening that you can prepare

so carefully in person or in advance

so that when you're in person, it's a

little less halting, a little less like,

"Oh, where was I going with this? " And

it's just talking about that message.

Yeah. I couldn't agree with

you more. I know Sean Claggett,

I've heard him sort of

talk about it as well.

It's like by the time they go to trial,

the person who's doing

opening has done it 20 times.

So it just is so automatic at that

point, nothing's going to throw you off.

And I get it. There are lots

of lawyers that would never ...

They just have an outline,

they get up there and they communicate

and they have that sort of authentic

connection with jurors and

they're amazing trial lawyers.

But I do feel like it's the one part

of the trial you can prepare the

most for.

It's the one piece where you sort

of know exactly what you want to do.

And I've found that I end up spending

too much time preparing the opening.

And to be brutally honest

in Nick Riley's words,

I completely dropped the ball on preparing

closings and rebuttal closings. So

I'll be going into closings and it's like,

I haven't even really thought

about it. I'm just going to go in.

I don't have PowerPoint

ready. So that's what I.

Need more. Well, let's talk about closings

though and trying to prepare them.

Okay. So it was probably completely out

of order where we're supposed to head.

But let's say we're talking about

preparing here and how you can

prepare that opening.

And for me, it helps.

Nobody's going to do it

exactly the same way,

but for me it helps and I feel like I

can then have that natural connection.

But in closing, for

example, in this trial,

I was still taking testimony from the

defense doctor the morning of close.

Wow.

And so yeah, you've got an

idea of where you want to head,

but things are still coming out that are

new. And then you're taking testimony,

taking testimony, typing

testimony, you take a little break,

you're doing your close, right?

And so you have to be open to

different approaches, I guess,

and remain flexible because in this one,

my wife helps me with trials, Jennifer,

and she's there throughout the trial

from start to finish and writing down

nuggets about what people are saying and

watching the jury for me and all this

stuff. It's amazing help.

And then prepping close,

we're just pacing in a hallway and we're

throwing in bullet lines and we're just

like, "And this one's at this and that

one's at that. And we need to put, oh,

and this is golden. We're

going to put this in.

" And it comes together. I don't know

how you could prep a close the same way

you would prep an opening,

just because it's so changeable

throughout the trial based on what

actually comes in and

what people have to say.

Yeah. I guess my thought on that

is it seems like all closings,

part of it is massaging the

jury instructions, however

you want to call that.

You've got the verdict form,

you know there's jury

instructions you need to go over.

So you can plan that in advance and

you can have a PowerPoint with those

instructions ready to go and that's

about as best as I've been able to do.

I'm anxious to improve on my

closings by utilizing more

visual triggers. So when there's a

theme or something that's come up,

and ideally you could

start this in opening,

if you're able to use visuals

in opening that are not

admitted into evidence, which

I know is such a struggle.

It seems like in other parts of the

country, people have a lot more leeway,

but to the extent you're able

to take a concept and define

that concept with some kind of symbol

and then use that symbol again in closing

to trigger the juror's memory,

I want to try that. That's what

I'm going to work on in the future.

So with that being said, great. Well,

except I'm telling you, it is frustrating,

at least in Colorado,

it feels like all of the judges believe

if you have not stipulated to an

exhibit, you can't use it in opening.

So it just seems like you got to

get really creative in terms of

visuals you want to use

to assign to a concept.

But I think in some respects,

that restriction leads to simplicity,

which should work in our favor.

So if there's a concept that

we're trying to explain,

be it somebody didn't have

symptoms before and then they did,

we can come up with some visual that

is simple and then we'll talk in a

minute about,

and actually I was just in a meeting with

our trial team on another case talking

about exchanging PowerPoint visuals

before pretrial conference and getting

objections and things of that nature.

Maybe we can cover that later.

But when they see a visual that is so

simple, I suppose they're going to say,

"Well, that's not evidence. That's going

to be argument." And unfortunately,

I feel like a lot of judges won't let

us do that, but it's still worth a try.

Still worth a try. Still worth a try.

Because anytime you can put something

in your opening and then come back to it

later and say, "I told you I was going

to, and I did, and here it is. ".

Yeah, for sure.

And I think even if you're

left with photographs or other

evidence that the defense can't credibly

say is not going to be stipulated to or

is not going to be admitted,

then it's still show don't tell.

So I definitely strongly believe

you want to be using visuals in

your opening to tell the story because

the defense often gets up with their

legal pad and just rambles.

Sure. Yeah, true.

That was a heck of an intro and

I want to talk about this

case, but before we do,

just tell us a little bit

about yourself and how it is.

I do like to get to know people a little

bit better in our community of Colorado

trial lawyers. How is it that you

came to be a Colorado trial lawyer?

Well, I guess it depends on how far back

we want to go because I've always liked

helping people.

I feel like everybody needs a little help

sometime and it feels good to be able

to be that help and do that

for them. I grew up in a family

without any money and my dad was arrested

for reconnecting the power when they

turn it off multiple times,

that kind of thing and fingernail

polished to change the sticker on the car

plates. Wow. Yeah. Yeah.

So we always needed help.

And I always knew going into law school

and through law school that I was

doing this because I wanted to

represent people, individuals.

So ended up doing criminal

defense for a while,

interned at the public defender's office.

We were doing trials all the time

there. You're a prosecutor, right?

So got those core trial skills early.

And then for me,

I moved on and did a bunch of family

law for a while and then found that I

really love doing personal injury. But

it's always been representing people,

trying to be there to

help people who need help.

And that feels good and that's

worth coming to work for.

Yeah.

And the one thing I feel like that I was

able to get at the prosecutor's office,

and you probably received when you

were interning at the public defender's

office, is before you ...

I feel like you can be

free and express yourself

effectively,

you got to learn the fundamentals and

there's no better place however you

do it to learn those fundamentals.

Is that the advice if someone's

out there listening and they think,

"I want to be a trial lawyer," would

you say, "Go to the PD's office,

go to the public defender's office,

or do criminal defense, family,

whatever it is to get in front

of people and judges and get

those fundamentals.

Down." Yeah,

I would just say whatever gets you into

what you truly want to do more often.

I think for some folks, it's

really good to all, walk, run,

and for some people it fits to

just run, right? And so I think-.

Fly, fly. Yeah.

Yeah. Right. Figure it out. And no,

I think there are definitely

learning experiences all over.

So I guess I would just say probably

what everyone should be aiming to do is

what they love to do and what makes

you happy and what makes you really

motivated to come to work.

And for a lot of people who do

what we do and are amazing at it,

they probably wouldn't feel super amazing

doing criminal defense or or what have

you, right? It's just, this is going to

fit everyone. But I would say people,

you know when you're doing the right

thing and it feels right and you are

whistling on the way

to the office, do that.

Yeah. I love that.

And the thing that I just caught

myself thinking as we were having this

conversation about

fundamentals and whatnot,

is that juries and even

judges are a lot more

forgiving than we may think.

We come in striving for perfection,

thinking if we stumble over our words or

stumble over admitting the document or

something, the jurors are going to punish

us, but the opposite is probably true.

They see what's in there fighting,

not being perfect and

they resonate with that.

So I guess what I'm telling any young

listeners out there is just go do it and

you'll learn by doing, and

if you fall a couple times,

it is fine because you're

going to do just fine.

If you're pursuing a just cause and

you've got a good client, then just go.

Yeah, absolutely. And maybe

the more often you're going,

which is sometimes still trying to learn

myself, the more often you're going,

the less worried you'll be about

how are they perceiving me or

judging me or whatever.

And I know that there are some trial

gurus out there who have transcended that

concern about like, it's not about me

and it's not about how I'm being judged,

but I think we all still

struggle. For sure.

Yeah. So how is it you have your

solo practitioner, is that right?

Yeah. Yeah. I'm a solo.

Tell us about your journey of how

you ended up hanging your shingle.

And honestly,

what advice would you give for other

lawyers that are listening that maybe are

thinking about doing that or are about

to do it? What advice do you have?

Yeah.

I think nobody's a true solo

because there are organizations like

CTLA out there,

the people like you out there and the

people you've had on who repeatedly say

they're willing to mentor

and don't try to just

make it all up as you go. Talk to

people who've done it and been there,

listen to these things,

be a sponge is what I'm still trying

to be as a sponge and just take it all

in,

take in as much as you can and

don't be afraid to do it differently

because, okay,

so you've got all these

different approaches to how

you prep for opening or I

prep for close or what we think

about jury selection and should it be

exclusionary or should we start

educating immediately and all of these.

You get a million ways to do a trial

And who knows how many of those will

come out with great outcomes until

you're out there doing it and finding out

what works and what feels right for you.

And experimentation helps

us figure that out, I think.

And obviously just doing it, being there.

Co-counseling with people is certainly

a big deal. Shouldn't be overlooked.

We do a whole lot of good

with co-counseling and a

whole lot of learning through

that. So I just think run toward what

you want to do and keep doing it,

put yourself in the arena and stay

there as much as you can and then you're

going to come out an expert, right?

Yeah. I love that. I love

that. So all right. Well,

let's dig into the facts of this

case because it is fascinating.

Tell us a little bit about what happened

and then we can get into the trial

strategy piece of it.

So my amazing, super credible,

awesome client was.

I'm going to pause you right there.

It seems like every great

result starts with that intro.

Oh, really? Yeah.

It seems like the point is

great clients make for great

results.

So if you've got a case you're working

through litigation and you're like, "Man,

I love this client, that's something

to know. " Or if you're like,

"This client's driving me crazy,"

then maybe that's something you got to

consider too. But I interrupted

you. I'm sorry. Tell us what.

Happened. Don't be sorry at all.

And I think you're right about that

because of course the jury wants to reward

people they like. And so, okay. Anyway,

she was a 68 year old Target

customer the day that she fell and

she was approaching the store

with her daughter and there

was a sign that had fallen over

in the wind and they kind of

walked by the sign toward the

front door and then she remembered,

and this was in 2021,

she remembered that she had forgotten

her mask and there's still signage at the

store that reminded people on the way in

from COVID times to please wear a mask.

She turns around, starts to go back to

her car, trips over the fallen sign.

And then after she's

down for a bit, gets some first

aid help from Target employees,

she goes in and continues her shopping

trip with her daughter, so no big deal,

no case, right?

Well,

do me a favor and back up and

describe this sign because

is it a sign that's in the

cement or tell us about this.

Sign.

And that's important because I think a

lot of the signs in the parking lots that

we're used to seeing are installed

and directly into the asphalt.

So you don't really have to worry

about testy things like wind,

but Target chose instead to purchase

these portable signs that have

these plastic fillable bases,

then you're meant to fill them with

materials that are recommended by the

manufacturer so that they can resist

wind and stay upright up to a certain

extent. Of course, there are

limitations on the signs,

but they have wheels on the side so they

can easily be wheeled off next to the

store if it's super windy out and

then brought back out as needed,

or you could just have more of

them out or fewer of them out.

And these signs were used in

that kind of drive up, pickup,

curbside pickup area that everybody

started using in COVID times.

So it was meant for people to come

out and fill orders and then go

back into the store and you would park

and call and tell them which spot.

So this would be the sign that's in

between the parking spaces that has a big

sign on it that says what parking

space you're in and so on.

And that's the sign. It's like an eight

foot tall sign. This is a large sign,

which was of course part of our trial.

And I think in a lot of trip and fall

cases, part of the defense is always,

"Well, why wouldn't you watch where

you're going? " And so we had,

"Why weren't you watching where you going?

" She was fine because she

continued her shopping trip after.

Can't have been that

bad. We had all of that.

But it turns out that when she

fell, the way that she fell,

she felt like right hand out and extended,

so the palm of her hand struck the

ground and then kind of rolled.

And the way it extended

and injured her hand,

she ended up with ulnar nerve

damage from the elbow area,

we'll say symptomatic ulnar nerve damage

from the elbow area and in the right

hand that affected how she

uses her hand and caused pain.

So quick question on that.

Is that similar to carpal

tunnel type of injury or is this

different?

It's different.

So we had a fight over whether the

defense could call it carpal tunnel during

jury selection.

We submitted questions to the judge in

this case in advance and then the court

pulled from our submitted questions

to ask their own questions or his own

questions. And one of theirs that they

submitted mentioned carpal tunnel. And

it was one of those

situations where you think,

should I just let them ask that or let

someone say that and then show how this

is so much different than that? Because

when you think of carpal tunnel,

I'm sure there are very severe cases and

I'm sure they can be very debilitating,

but I think a lot of

people think of, "Well,

my wrist is a little bit sore because

I've been typing a lot." And so we thought

they were headed that direction. They

ended up kind of like throwing that out,

but it was so thoroughly discredited that

that was just not the issue. And that

was kind of the other side that held me

back a little bit on wanting to make a

full fight out of that was we're going

to be able to show that this is quite

different than your standard like, "Oh,

my wrist hurts a little bit

and it's a little bit sore.".

Was there any issue about

the severity of this injury

requiring surgical intervention? I mean,

was it like a pretty big deal that

was debilitating for the client,

so that wasn't really a fight or were

they trying to claim she didn't really

need surgery on this?

No, they actually did not go that

direction necessarily that she didn't need

surgery.

I was more concerned about

defense argument that maybe

the surgery made it worse

because we did have worsening over time.

And so part of what we were doing in

our preparation is just like, of course,

with all of these cases,

you have to personally get into the

weeds with the medical records and know

them. As part of that,

we were looking for support

for her explanation of

how this has been, which has

been a worsening over time.

And so what we went to trial with

was examples in the medical record

from where there was worsening

before the first surgery.

There was worsening

after the first surgery.

There was worsening before the second

surgery, yes, there were multiples,

and then there was worsening

after the second surgery.

So we had a lot of explaining to do

on that because I think my concern

going in, of course,

was that jurors would be sitting there

thinking the entire time like, "Okay,

well,

why are the surgeries if they didn't

resolve it? " And so we were on that early

and making sure we were telling that

story with everybody. So let me.

Kind of circle this

back around to opening,

because I'm curious when you're

talking about this ulnar nerve injury

that got worse over time, et cetera,

did you include a teaching section

in your opening to address and

start to familiarize the jurors

with these medical concepts?

Yeah, because I felt like it

was going to be a hard ...

We didn't want that to just unfold or

have the defense have the first crack at

that, right? So yeah,

and I think opening is so great for that

because you can tell a story that is

really educating them about the medicine,

but it sure sounds like you're just

talking about her life and how it impacted

her and what it was like.

So it was told from

the perspective of what

makes a person agree to have

surgery to try to fix something.

And what were her

thoughts when she's told,

just like we're all told around surgery

time that this probably is going to

help, but it might not. And

do you take that seriously?

And what's the difference between

surgery we wanted surgery to for her?

So everything,

all the medicine education was kind of

like put forward as a patient would think

about it, not as a doctor

would necessarily explain it.

So let me just see if I'm understanding

this because I'm very intrigued.

Are you saying that in your opening,

you sort of told the story of the medicine

from the perspective of the patient

about what was- Yes. Oh, that's

brilliant. I love that. Explain to her?

Right.

And why would she agree to a second

surgery after the first one didn't work?

Well, because they told her it

was going to be different, right?

They're doing a different thing this

time and we're really confident this is

going to help.

And then what's it like for her when

the pain comes back after surgery number

two? And so we're giving

them cues along the way that,

because I'm thinking the defense is

going to get up and just say, "Well,

if it didn't work the first

time, why'd they do it again?

It's the same thing again,

but it's definitely not the same thing

again." We wanted them to know that right

from the start.

But I thought it'd be more compelling

of kind of like allow them to imagine

themselves in that situation

where they're just like,

"You'll do whatever it takes to get

better when you're in pain all the time."

Yeah.

I got to tell you a story that I just

heard Jordan Logan explain on another

podcast because it reminds me

exactly of what you just said,

which is you're worried that the defense

is going to get up and say, "Well,

why did she get this second surgery if

the first one didn't work?" And so what

Jordan did in a different case is

basically get up in opening and say,

"And the defense is going

to come in and say, well,

why'd she get this surgery a second time

if the first one didn't work?" And then

the defense lawyer got up

and was like, "No, no, no,

we're not saying that and said something

else." But then they were able to

diffuse that argument altogether because

the defense lawyer agreed that they

were not going to argue that.

But I love that idea of

telling it from the perspective

of your client.

And I also want to give a shout out,

sorry De Lamont,

I've spent some time with her at her

trial lab and have spent some time dealing

with her opening and she calls

it like the teaching section.

And so what I'm sort of hearing

about, and yours is like, jurors,

in order to do your job here,

you're going to have to learn about

this thing called the ulnar nerve and go

into all this explanation.

How deep did you go in opening or did

you just sort of leave it from the

perspective of what your client

was being told by the doctors?

The opening was given.

From mostly the perspective of the client.

There was very little technical

medical in my opening.

It was meant to be a story start

to finish about her situation,

what happened to her and

what her experience through

it all was like. However,

I did feel the need to flip

some medicine in, again,

from her perspective though. So it

was like, I just framed it as like,

why would she agree to do it all again?

And you're going to hear. Of course,

I did this section about had

to ask ourselves and sorry

to Lamont advocates that

too. And there's a section in

her opening that is like, okay,

we have to deal with the bad stuff.

And so after telling a story as

like, before we brought you here,

we had to ask ourselves some

questions and pick those, right?

Yeah.

And you kill them. And there

was some medicine in there like,

was it the doctor's

fault? Was it made worse?

Whose fault would that be in the end?

Because of course you could always

try to persuade a jury that if a

doctor made a mistake, then it's

still the tortfeasor's fault.

But I feel like that doesn't always feel

good to be up there in that position

trying to do that. And that

wasn't the case in our case.

So before I go too far down that road,

I was worried about it being a defense,

but it was not backed up by the

evidence and it simply was not the case.

Now,

how much time did you spend in opening

percentage wise talking about Target and

its conduct versus the

perspective of your client?

Because as you're hearing that, that

sounds awesome, but I'm like, okay,

but are you violating the rule of spending

too much time in opening and talking

about your clients?

How'd you deal with that?

I just started with Target and I'm aware

of that suggestion that we not start

with our own client. And I agree and

I don't, I think most of the time,

I guess I agree.

David Ball makes a really good point

about like not bringing your client's name

into it at the beginning.

My framing of this case was really

like corporation versus customer.

How did you frame it that way?

First off, I never said target.

I said target corporation every

time throughout the entire trial.

And there was a lot of ... We

called, I should know four or five,

but I think we called four target

employees as witnesses ourselves. And what

we wanted to be clear with them as I was

up there kind of like just wrapping and

joking with them a little bit

at times, "It's not your fault.

We're not blaming you for this.

Target set you up." It's like the

corporation didn't provide you what you

needed. They didn't tell you what the

wind resistance of these signs were.

You didn't have a part

in choosing these signs.

You didn't have a part in choosing what

colors they used for these signs or what

colors they used for the parking

space. You didn't have a role,

you weren't at the table, right?

Nobody told you how often to check these

things to make sure that they stayed

full. Nobody told you what the

procedure was for writing them down,

all of this stuff.

And so you just separate these poor

employees who are out there doing their

absolute best and the corporation

who kind of hung them out to dry by

sending these things out with absolutely

no guidance whatsoever about how to use

them. I shouldn't say no guys whatsoever

because they did actually send a little

used cat litter, which is not

recommended by the manufacturer.

And there was this whole moment where

the store manager who was called by the

defense said, "Well,

we know exactly how much cat litter we

put in there because it says 50 pounds

right on the bag." And I was like, "Well,

these are the buckets that were used.

We got that in on another Target employee

and there were 30 pound buckets." And

she was like, "Well, we'll use

three and that filled them,

but they were 30 pounds versus 50 pounds.

Started stores don't sell a 50 pound

bag of cat litter and we knew that.

And so we asked her and she didn't know.

" And so there was a

weight difference based on,

it It created a question of how these

things were filled and whether they were

filled properly.

I want to pause for a second because what

you were just talking about is frankly

brilliant.

And it is brilliant for you to call

target employees and

blame it on the company

set you up to fail. That is,

I don't recall- You successfully

got that done on the 30 cross.

So tell us about that. Tell

us how you worked that in.

Number one was this strategy

of we're going to have the

Target employees be sympathetic and

the corporation set them up to fail.

Did you have that before

the 30 depo? And if so,

how did you implement it in the depo?

Okay.

So it was maybe a bit low hanging

fruit because it was apparent based

on discovery responses that we weren't

going to get a lot of information

because there wasn't information. We.

Weren't going to get a lot of

documents because there weren't.

Tell us more about the discovery

responses that led you to that.

We're talking response to documents

about policies and procedures and things

like that?

Well, no, just like the

acquisition of the signs.

They couldn't produce any documents in

connection with the acquisition of the

signs. They couldn't tell

us who made the decisions.

They couldn't tell us who was

present, who was not present.

They couldn't tell us who made the

decisions about whether to create a policy

about when to bring them in.

They couldn't tell us if anybody even

ever considered the wind resistance of

these signs.

Wow. Okay.

They couldn't tell us if anybody checked

the manufacturer website because the

wind resistance was right there super

clear, super easy to find. And nobody,

as far as we know,

based on the testimony that was provided

and discovery response and all that,

as far as we know,

nobody at Target ever actually looked

to see what the wind resistance of these

signs were.

And yet they acknowledged sending

these signs out all over Colorado.

I believe it was obviously national,

but they admitted all over Colorado

windy areas, not windy areas and so on.

And nobody's watching the Weather Channel.

Nobody's doing anything to kind of

know should these be brought in?

There's no policy for doing that.

There's no procedure other

than somebody thinks, "Oh,

they're a bit wobbly." And they came

out during the trial that they knew that

the signs were falling because

they hit some cars. Oh, wow.

And The defense during

the trial just made it one

sign had fallen, that

it happened one time.

I'm not sure exactly what they based

that on because we had multiple witnesses

throughout the trial say, "Well, yeah,

I'm aware of it happening and it happens

maybe once a month." Or another one was

like, it happens regularly.

Another one admitted that they had sent

reports up about these signs falling and

we got a regional manager on the stand

who agreed that she knew and it had been

discussed and that she

had sent reports up.

And then part of the argument enclosed

and then it kind of became like a

miniature theme was that reports were

going up and nothing was coming down.

Again, corporation versus employees.

Right? It's just so masterful.

You have regional managers and

potentially the corporate 30 getting

concessions.

And then are you saying that the

store manager was readily admitted,

"I've never been given any

guidance, nobody ever told me.

" So is that the juxtaposition that

you set up as sort of like regional and

corporate knows this,

store manager knows that?

Yeah.

And we did point out that corporate

didn't send any of the documents

down with these signs.

They just sent their own instructions

and an email that they had made up and

then nobody was ever even able

to produce that email. Wow.

And then they had a procedure

for things like this.

When they do things like this,

they're done this way. Well,

that's not doing the thing.

And then

there was also the corporate

expectations versus the actual

boots on the ground and what

was happening was so different.

And we were able to point

that out in a bunch of ways.

One of them was we found the target

ethics code on their website and it

includes some statements about

safety being their top priority.

And then every single Target witness,

including the ones they called,

embraced that immediately and we were

able to walk them through the ethics code

and they embrace, embrace,

embrace, embrace. And then

we were able to ask them,

what was the valid safety reason for

choosing signs that can fall over in the

wind instead of signs that go

right down into the ground?

What was the valid safety reason for

choosing colors that matched the colors on

the ground instead of OSHA yellow,

which was a standard option

for these sign bases,

OSHA yellow.

And what was the safety reason for

not having a policy about,

not checking how much wind these things

can withstand and then not having a

policy and all of this.

And a lot of the answers

to that were not present

in our written discovery responses.

And so I was not surprised in the 30

deposition that the witness admitted to

absolutely no prep because you follow

up and when they can't answer something,

you just point out that,

"Hey, you saw this list,

you knew what we were going to ask you.

What did Target Corporation do to

prepare you to answer this question?".

Okay.

And the answer was, "I don't know.

" Or,

"I called some guy and he didn't know

either was the answer." And so what

kind of surprised me a bit is that so

much time passed between the 30 depo and

the trial and the same witness

was the 30 witness at trial.

And then in front of the jury,

instead of what did Target do to

prepare you to answer that question,

when I got the I don't know,

it was Target Corporation didn't really

prepare you to answer that question,

did they? They sent you here to

answer that question for them.

They're not here. They sent

you to answer this question,

but they didn't prepare you to answer

it. And she was like, "No, they didn't.".

Wow. At trial. Yeah. Wow. I love that.

So kind of changing subject, I'm

just curious, in a case like this,

did you have any kind of

expert on commercial signage

or store safety or did you

need any kind of industry

standard expert in this case?

No.

I love it.

I common sense did. And by the

way, I was worried about that.

I was considering that. And it was one

of those things that I was thinking is,

should we have a retail safety expert?

But I felt like they were so off the

chart with their own lack of knowledge,

their own ability to articulate

a standard of any sort. I mean,

they could not tell us a standard

and it's their sign, right?

It's their property and they admitted

landowner standards right at the beginning

of the case. So we had

to fight over that, but

they couldn't tell us what the standard

is. And so it was a reasonable standard.

And I think everybody in the

room at the end agreed that their

lack of information, lack of effort,

lack of follow up and follow

through were not reasonable.

Got it.

So let's talk a little bit about

sort of the defenses in this case.

What were you facing with

respect to the defense doctor?

What was the conclusion

of the defense doctor?

Like this is just degenerative change,

you were going to get this

problem anyway type thing.

What he did is he focused on the urgent

care record. So she went to the ...

Like I said,

she finished her shopping trip and they

were turned out they're actually really

good personal reasons for that.

So her daughter has these

needs and expectations and

if things don't go as

planned, it doesn't go well.

And this was a rare day out for them.

And so the explanation of why she stayed

and continued to shop was actually

pretty compelling.

And it really showed off

her being a caring mother,

but they made a big deal out of the fact

that she didn't go straight to the ER

and they made a big deal out of the fact

that she continued to shop and it can't

have been that bad.

But what the defense doctor really

focused on was at urgent care.

And as part of breaking these

records down and preparing for trial,

we really needed to take

every symptom she has and

find its origin.

And there was progression over time.

So we're finding like for paresthesias,

we're finding like early

reports of tingling, right?

And they had overlooked a

record where there was tingling.

So they believed that the first mention

of paraesthesias or numbness was like

three months after or whatever.

They were just wrong about that.

The urgent care record was mainly

like, it said hand and wrist.

So they were like, "Well,

there wasn't an elbow issue." And

there wasn't a hand issue because

the defense doctor decided to

just go full on it was wrist.

And the reason that the defense doctor

decided to try to thread that needle is

because her wrist wasn't really

symptomatic after ... I mean,

her wrist hurt because she fell,

but it wasn't part of her ulnar nerve

damage and it wasn't persistent and it

wasn't really a huge part of the case.

And so his hope was that he was going

to stroll in and just say, "Well,

the only thing wrong with her was her

right wrist. It says that right here in

the urgent care record, it does not.

" That was their focus at urgent care.

So that's the only thing that

was wrong. That got better.

Everything else that she's experienced

is probably due to typing too much or

something like that.

And so that was the approach. In fact,

he said at urgent care, I didn't even

care enough to put her in a splint.

And by the way, he was wrong

about that. And this is where.

Just knowing the record pays

off, right? Just knowing.

Let me jump in and ask you,

because I'm hearing you say that

you knew that this defense doctor

had multiple errors in his report.

And so I guess the question is,

depose that doctor or not.

Yeah.

So knowing that you had these punches

that would land, what did you do?

Depose or save it for trial? Saved.

It for trial.

Did not depose them.

And how'd that work? It.

Worked out amazing. And it was a

little squirrely as it is to do that.

The big benefit to deposing is you

know what they're going to say.

You've got it locked in and so on.

And there was progression over time,

but we could see that progression in the

reports because there wasn't just one

report and she was continuing to treat

while we were litigating this case.

So her final surgery was like

a month before deposition.

So we were still figured out as we

went too. But his initial report,

he hadn't even examined her at that

point. It was a records review.

And then he supplemented

and then he amended,

I think if you call it something

different each time, then it's justified.

But it was like all these

different reports and you

could kind of see where he's

headed over time because

at first he was really like

deferential to the surgeon. He's a

colleague of the surgeon at the same

practice, by the way. Yeah.

And I read that. And I mean,

that's sort of crazy. Yeah.

Tell the listeners a little bit about,

expand on that a little bit more.

And I'm curious about if you elicited

concessions from the defense doctor,

and we can name them, it doesn't matter.

If you elicited concessions from the

defense doctor that they respect the

treating doctor,

and did you differentiate the

ethical obligation a treating doctor

has versus an IME doc? That's

probably a dumb rhetorical question,

but tell the listeners more

about that. But yes, I.

Did do those things. And we had

also sent her, because I was, again,

a little bit worried that the jury might

conclude that the surgeon was at fault

for some of this. So we had

sent her for another opinion,

an additional opinion with another hand

surgeon who's unaffiliated with that

practice.

And we had that record in through

our surgeon and through our physical

rehab doc. And so it

was pretty well covered.

And one of the things that I did before

the defense doctor testified is because

we could tell from his

reports what direction he was

headed, He wanted to blame

a condition that was actually

diagnosed in her left hand,

but some of the medical records had

gotten it wrong and said, right. So again,

we've got our issues just

like every other case, right?

You always do focus on those issues we're

worried about a lot as we're prepping

trial.

And so this guy was going that direction

and with our own doctors, I'd say,

"Okay,

so you concluded it was not Debutrins

or Debutrins." I still don't know how to

say it correctly. And this other doctor,

you aware of what his opinion was.

And then the second opinion doctor,

you aware what his opinion was,

which doctor thinks is Deputrins? "Oh,

the defense doctor and which doctor was

paid by Target to testify?" Oh, okay.

And so before the jury ever heard

him speak, we're setting that up.

And then when he's there,

I guess we weren't entirely sure.

So the answer to the question about

whether we knew there were errors in his

report, I would say from his reports,

there were maybe some things

that were wrong here and there,

but what we could see from the reports

was that he was becoming more adversarial

and more specific that he was going

for it. Whereas at the very beginning,

we kind of thought, "Oh,

this guy's not going to be that bad."

He's actually very deferential to his

colleague, which we really

wanted and appreciated,

and maybe he's not going to come

out all knives out at trial,

and he sure did. He sure did.

I was curious because I

saw your post about it.

Talk to us a little bit about his

demeanor and this issue about having to

finish a question, a rhetorical

question with the word correct.

Yes. Okay. So as you

know, leading questions,

we're allowed to ask leading questions,

and unless you're trying to get

points in a mock trial in law school,

you're probably not going to

say correct after everyone.

And I actually coach

clients. I'm like, "Listen,

don't be that person who sits

on the witness stand and says,

Was that a question? Don't be that person.

We want people to like

you. So just roll with it.

The questions sound different on cross

and they sound on direct and that's part

of how I prepare my people.

No one told him that because when

I was crossing him, honestly,

he just seemed like he wanted

to stab me. He was like, really,

I thought he was pretty hostile.

And so when I would ask a question that

didn't end with correct or something,

he'd just stare at me. And that

moment of silence we just had,

longer than that, longer than that.

He would just stare at me.

And so then I would say,

"Correct." And then he

would answer the question.

So it was interesting. I've had

someone be that consistent about that.

I got to tell you a funny war story

because this is a great war story.

So I'm in Boulder trying a case. I

forget who the defense doctor was,

and I ask him a question and I

don't say correct. And he said,

"Was that a question?" And I said,

"Well, I think it was a question.

Yes." And he's like,

"Okay." Then he answered it.

And then the next question I asked,

I asked the question and I said,

"Correct?" Like that at

the end. Yeah, exactly.

It was so funny and the jurors hated him.

The jurors hated him just like yours.

I mean, obviously it was a question,

but I get how witnesses sometimes feel

like that's a win for them to try to

point that out, but I don't think it

goes over the way they think it does.

And so there was that. There

was also just like anger in him.

You could tell because he

was being corrected about

getting things in the record

wrong. There was a

splint. I showed him that.

I showed him where they issued a splint

and he thanked me for that correction.

And then I had him.

Finish a sentence- Hang on.

I want you to set that up a little

bit more because I'm just curious.

So you know in the record he says it

couldn't have been that bad because they

didn't issue a splint. So how did

you set that line of questioning up,

if you don't mind going into the weeds

a little bit on that issue? Sure.

So I just reminded.

Him of what he had said on direct and

that he said that she was not issued a

splint at urgent care. And to him,

that was an indication that her

injuries weren't that serious.

And that was one of the bases for his

opinions that he shared and so on and so

on. And as you do, you do that setup,

right? And then I just asked him,

and by the way, at this

point in the trial,

we're pretty late in the trial at this

point, and I think I mentioned before,

but my wife helps me with these trials

and she's sitting there watching the

jury, right?

And we bring this big king flip

chart and we intend to use it for

opening and closing and so on

because I think it was maybe Tim

Galusi on one of your episodes mentioned

that when the teacher writes something

down, so do you.

And I think that works really well with

these flip charts and opening and close.

And I'm sure people use them when they're

working with witnesses and whatnot.

But these jurors in particular,

they had this little monitor in front of

them in the jury box in federal court.

That's one thing that's super cool about

federal court is one HDMI plug gets you

just screens everywhere. And the

jurors love that and you could see,

and Jennifer caught this,

that sometimes we would be talking about

something or referencing something in

the record and they would glance down

at their screen to see if it was there,

right? So they wanted more. So we

start putting everything on screens.

We start putting everything on screens

and ended up using the ELMO for

things that we were going

to use flip charts for,

but this was an excellent example

because crossing this doctor,

before he even answers the question,

we've got a call out using trial

pad and we've got a call out

from the record showing that a splint

is in the supplies and then we've got a

call out showing that a splint

was given to her and used.

And then he kind of thanks

me for the correction,

but there was another major correction

that was made and that was in his direct

examination,

he read half of a sentence in a record.

And he's actually reading the record as

he's answering the question and what he's

reading is something from that second

opinion doctor we got

who says, "At this time,

I don't recommend future surgery,

but as time goes on, if

her symptoms continue,

then it's going to be very likely that

she's going to need this and this and

this and this. " And that was the year

before trial and she's still in symptoms.

And so what he reads is,

"I'm not recommending future

surgery." And he stops.

And I was like, "Uh-uh, that's not

the whole..." So I get up there,

and this was the theatrical moment

where I'm like, "Now, doctor,

on direct, when you were testifying,

and Target corporation attorneys were

asking you about this and this and this,

you testified about this second opinion,

you respect Dr. Sashar, it was

the second opinion. You know him,

you're affiliated in the past no longer

and so on and just really talked this

guy up. And then you actually read from

the record. So this wasn't from memory.

You were reading this in

front of the jury on direct.

You only read half of a sentence and

I'd like you to finish that sentence for

us." So I call it out, it's on their

screens, they're reading along with him,

he finishes the entire sentence

and the whole time he's doing that,

I'm kind of like giving

a look to the jury.

And I felt like that was one of those

times in the trial that's maybe a little

bit rare where you feel full license to

get a little dramatic and kind of just

call out with your eyes that something

amazing is happening right now.

And then in the close,

I was able to circle back to that and

this is one of those hallway closed

editions, right? Because again,

this happens like an hour or two before

I'm closing. And I'm telling the jury,

if we had not pointed that out,

you would not know because they

didn't want to give you that piece.

Why would that be? And knowing the

record, right? You got to know.

You got to know the quote.

To say that that is an epic moment is

the understatement of the year. I mean,

I've never had that great fortune to

have a witness walk into that punch.

Holy cow. And as you're

telling that story,

it's almost like in my mind I'm role

playing all the different ways I would

mess up landing that punch or taking

that low hanging fruit by being

too aggressive, too in the doctor's face,

asking is there a particular reason

you chose to not read the ... I mean,

I don't even know. Oh yeah.

Yeah. It's just.

Such an amazing thing. Holy cow, man.

But go back to what you said about

knowing the record. So let me ask you,

when that doctor stopped, did you

instantly know like, wait a minute,

he didn't finish the rest

of the sentence? I knew.

It in the moment.

Wow.

I.

Knew it in the moment. I was like, no,

that's not the whole quote. I mean,

it's important, right?

And that's not like some super remote

piece of the record that you're like, "Oh,

this happened three years before she fell

and I don't remember exactly what was

said." No, this is important stuff. This

is stuff that we sent her out to get.

So of course we know what's in it,

but I think it's a good lesson for

knowing the record in its entirety because

little things like that,

right? If you don't know,

they can definitely get away with that

live in trial if you have not deposed

them, which I still feel like,

imagine all of that happening

in deposition and how much

better he would've come

off live in front of the jury, I think.

Yeah. We would've issued a supplemental

report, correcting- Actually,

it doesn't change my opinion at

all. I actually knew all of that.

Right, right, right. Exactly. It

would've been like addendum number six,

but I felt like even though there's a

lot of comfort to be had in deposing in

this case, it would've

helped him more than.

Us. I mean, I got to be honest,

I personally have kind of come to the

world where I don't really like deposing

defense doctors that often,

unless it's just going to be to confirm

bias stuff because it costs money,

then they kind of know

where you're coming from.

And I much prefer to just sort of have

them not know what to expect out of me

because I feel like maybe they're a

little bit nervous and I don't know,

it's just obviously it's a case by

case situation and in your case,

obviously it worked out brilliantly.

So final result in this case,

$2.7 million for your client.

Talk to us a little bit.

I know we talked beforehand and we're

coming up at the end of our time here.

What you took away about the

importance of either using flip

charts or using ...

You mentioned that the jurors in federal

court have little monitors and that if

I'm hearing you correctly,

they almost expected throughout the

trial to see things on that monitor,

backing up what's being said. So how

did your experience in this trial impact

how you will try cases in the future?

We didn't pivot, and I

was proud of us for that.

We pivoted to using those

screens for everything,

and I felt like it was really

effective closing argument.

Instead of flip charts,

we used an ELMO when I was just

writing just like overhead projector,

your teacher kind of thing.

And I felt like it landed super well and

it really worked well. So I

was glad we made that decision,

but we also went over the verdict form

and there was testimony throughout our

case to try to kind of set up and

distinguish physical impairment from pain

and suffering. And obviously that's

important in part because CAPS.

So there was testimony that was very

detailed about the impairment maybe even

being the worst of it for her,

despite pain all the time.

And all that impairment affected her.

And then that was all rehashed during

the close and we went through the verdict

form on the ELMO and I showed them

the lines and it's important that this

go here and this go there. And

it says on the verdict form, don't put

physical impairment damages on this line,

they go below.

And then we got a jury question while

they were deliberating. The first jury

question we got, you'll love this,

was, "Can we have a calculator?".

Oh my.

God.

Never happened.

To me. Oh yes, here's the calculator. And

then the second jury question was a

little more sad. It was, what do we do?

Where do impairment damages go?

But it didn't say like

impairment of quality of life.

It didn't say physical impairment.

So we're in federal court and the

judge that we're in front of was

kind of like already prepared an answer

in advance and then we're just arguing

with him about why he should not

use it. And his answer was- And.

Always works out well in federal court.

I know, right? And his

answer was, of course, well,

his answer was just like that physical

impairment line is for anything you

didn't include on non-economic

damages, which absolutely.

I disagree wholeheartedly

with that's not the law.

And I feel like that really hurt us

because then the entire non-economic

damages award or the entire ...

We got economic damages and we got pain

and suffering and zero for physical

impairment because they believed they

had included it in the non-economic.

And we know that because they followed

basically what we asked for on the per

diem arguments.

So.

For sure that they agreed that

there were physical impairment.

Damages, but they put

them all on one line.

And I have also been the recipient of

zero and impairment and like one and a

half million in non-economics. So I feel

your pain and it doesn't help. I mean,

the non-economics include impairment

in the quality of life. They do,

which we never.

Said. And maybe that was a

mistake, maybe it wasn't,

but we never said impairment of the

quality of life because we didn't want to

confuse them on that subject.

So I never used that phrase.

I used pain and suffering

for non-economic, and I

used physical impairment,

and I tried to distinguish impairment

from non-economic at every opportunity.

But if had it to do over, right?

What I would do, of course, knowing,

because you never know exactly what

a jury's going to get hung up on,

but it does make you wish you had a time

machine. So you could go back and say,

"Well, it's really important. Hear

me on this. " Physical impairment,

physical impairment, because we

couldn't get a definition in, right?

But physical impairment,

this is the testimony you

heard of physical impairment

that goes on this line.

I think we can get away with that.

Yeah. I've just come to endorse

the Cheney Galuzi that impairment

is the physiologic change of the human

body because then that's like the

cause and the effect is the

impairment of the quality of life,

but what they're ... And it's still

so difficult to do, but it seems like,

at least right now,

that's where I'm landing.

So two more quick things since we're

out of time that I wanted to cover.

The first is, because I know the answer

to this question and it's amazing,

tell us about the pre-suit offer

that you turned down to go to trial.

We turned down 500,000. I mean, listeners,

they turned down $500,000 on a slip and

fall case and went to trial in federal

court. Just absolutely amazing.

And the last little point that I

wanted our listeners to consider,

because you've talked about the

importance of using visuals throughout the

trial.

And I would just encourage people,

if they have a CVN subscription

or to go on YouTube,

Mark Lanier is the freaking

master at using Elmo in cross.

So he goes through and just does these

little diagrams and it's just like you

said, it's just like a teacher,

but I feel like jurors are so used

to seeing the teacher do that during

cross.

It was really effective and it just

makes me think that flip charts are

underutilized throughout trial.

And that's a big sorry

De Lamont thing too.

Anybody that's done anything

under her, she's huge about that.

So I'm going to endeavor to use more

flip charts throughout trial. Well,

I think the.

Question about whether you're using a

big fancy flip chart or an Elmo with

screens is just the location of

screens. Yeah. It's just like,

what's more visible?

The flip chart's huge and the flip chart's

really nice and the flip chart I feel

like maybe feels a bit more authentic or

something when you're using it as like

teachery. It's like, yeah,

it maybe reminds people

of education in a way,

but then also just having

screens everywhere.

And if you do have screens everywhere.

Then maybe that's the option to

take. Yeah, the magic's thought.

I like flip charts because it

takes a while to write on them,

so that gives jurors the time to

process what you're doing. Yes. Well,

Vern, thank you so much.

I mean, this has flown by.

We could go for hours, obviously.

We could talk- Absolutely.

I know I could.

You don't have any trouble getting

people on here talking about their trial

wins, I'm sure, right?

Well, no, this one in

particular, it's just,

I love talking trial strategy

because it's just so fascinating,

especially when it works out.

I mean, this was a home run,

this was an amazing result and I'm

sure you're just itching to get back.

Yes, absolutely. And thank you so much

for having me on here to talk about it.

It's awesome to do this,

especially given how much I have leaned

on others doing work like this to

prepare myself. It's been a huge help.

Well, thank you for coming on.

And until next time when we have

another person eager to come on,

and I'm just going to throw it out

there, we've been following the listserv.

There have been amazing verdicts

after amazing verdicts because the

tide has changed. We don't really

face these tort rooms. I mean,

it's still out there, but it's

not this pervasive problem before.

And it's a lot better to be a plaintiff's

lawyer now than to be a defense lawyer

10 times out of 10, but it's a good

time to be a plaintiff's lawyer.

And every one of those

verdicts, well earned and just.

And that's what's great about this work.

That's what's great about this work.

It's awesome to see that coming through.

You get warm feelings in your heart

because you know that there's some justice

being done and that's amazing.

Yeah, it's great.

Just take a moment of gratitude for the

amazing fortune we have to be able to do

this kind of work. I mean, I love

my job. I can tell you love yours.

I love what we do and thanks for

that. Thanks, Vern, for coming on.

Really appreciate it.

And I Until next time,

we'll be back with another episode of

the Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection

Podcast. Thank you for joining us.

We hope you've gained valuable insights

and inspiration from today's courtroom

warriors, and thank you

for being in the arena.

Make sure to subscribe and join us next

time as we continue to dissect real

cases and learn from

Colorado's top trial lawyers.

Our mission is to empower

our legal community,

helping us to become better trial lawyers

to effectively represent our clients.

Keep your connection to Colorado's

best trial lawyers alive at

www.thectlc.com.