Safety and Health Reporter
Brien Roche Law > Blog > Personal Injury > Polarizing Personal Injury Cases

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases

Brien Roche

Polarizing personal injury cases means making it clear from the outset that the defendant’s position is unreasonable.

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases- Start at the Beginning

This may begin in voir dire.  For example, a plaintiff has multiple lay witnesses who confirm the  changes in the plaintiff after the injury.  The defense on the other hand has a professional neuropsychologist who has earned a substantial fee and seen the plaintiff once.  Do any of you think that just because the neuropsychologist has an advanced degree that therefore makes him better able to comment on changes in the plaintiff after the injury.

It can be used in opening statement where you highlight some position taken by the defense either on liability or damages that is starkly contradicted by the plaintiff.  You don’t need to ask the jury how they would resolve that conflict.  You just lay out what the conflict is. 

Polarizing Your Presentation

In the cross-examination of a defense expert you don’t fall into the trap that it’s simply a battle of the experts.  It’s not a battle of the experts.  It’s the plaintiff’s testimony.  Plus the testimony of their lay witnesses.  Plus the testimony of multiple treating physicians who have seen the plaintiff numerous times.  All of that is then stacked up against high-paid defense experts who have seen the plaintiff one time.  

In the presentation of your evidence, you may want to admit the defendant’s responses to Request for Admissions.  For instance, if you ask them to admit liability and they denied it where liability is clear, that may be offered.  If you ask them to admit reasonableness and causation of medical bills and they denied it and presented no evidence challenging it, you may want to present that to the jury.  It shows the sharp contrast between the plaintiff and the defendant.  

Polarizing personal injury cases can be used effectively in your closing argument.  You lay out the common sense approach.  Lay out the basic facts.  You then contrast that with not facts but opinions of defense experts.  And these are defense experts who ignore all of plaintiff’s facts.  

Polarizing Person Injury Cases- Closing Argument

The polarization in closing argument is made even more stark because you can argue that not only is the defense discounting the plaintiff’s facts but the defense is saying that the plaintiff’s witnesses are lying.  They’re not telling the truth.  In other words they’ve all come into court to simply fabricate.  

Make the contrast sharp.  Make the line bright.

Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on personal injury see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with personal injury damages issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases

Brien Roche

Polarizing personal injury cases means making it clear from the outset that the defendant’s position is unreasonable.

Polarizing Personal Injury Cases- Start at the Beginning

This may begin in voir dire.  For example, a plaintiff has multiple lay witnesses who confirm the  changes in the plaintiff after the injury.  The defense on the other hand has a professional neuropsychologist who has earned a substantial fee and seen the plaintiff once.  Do any of you think that just because the neuropsychologist has an advanced degree that therefore makes him better able to comment on changes in the plaintiff after the injury.

It can be used in opening statement where you highlight some position taken by the defense either on liability or damages that is starkly contradicted by the plaintiff.  You don’t need to ask the jury how they would resolve that conflict.  You just lay out what the conflict is. 

Polarizing Your Presentation

In the cross-examination of a defense expert you don’t fall into the trap that it’s simply a battle of the experts.  It’s not a battle of the experts.  It’s the plaintiff’s testimony.  Plus the testimony of their lay witnesses.  Plus the testimony of multiple treating physicians who have seen the plaintiff numerous times.  All of that is then stacked up against high-paid defense experts who have seen the plaintiff one time.  

In the presentation of your evidence, you may want to admit the defendant’s responses to Request for Admissions.  For instance, if you ask them to admit liability and they denied it where liability is clear, that may be offered.  If you ask them to admit reasonableness and causation of medical bills and they denied it and presented no evidence challenging it, you may want to present that to the jury.  It shows the sharp contrast between the plaintiff and the defendant.  

Polarizing personal injury cases can be used effectively in your closing argument.  You lay out the common sense approach.  Lay out the basic facts.  You then contrast that with not facts but opinions of defense experts.  And these are defense experts who ignore all of plaintiff’s facts.  

Polarizing Person Injury Cases- Closing Argument

The polarization in closing argument is made even more stark because you can argue that not only is the defense discounting the plaintiff’s facts but the defense is saying that the plaintiff’s witnesses are lying.  They’re not telling the truth.  In other words they’ve all come into court to simply fabricate.  

Make the contrast sharp.  Make the line bright.

Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on personal injury see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with personal injury damages issues.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    [recaptcha]