Auto Accident Verdict: Hannasch v. The Bad Guys
In this video, Ramos Law Managing Partner Randal Manning sits down with trial attorney Jessica McBryant to discuss a recent car crash trial, Hannasch v. the bad guy Ramos Law attorneys Jared Mazzei and Jessica McBryant represented the plaintiff, who was rear-ended on a highway off-ramp by a driver who had bounced between concrete median barriers. Despite the clear circumstances, the defendant refused to accept fault, instead claiming the plaintiff had stopped unexpectedly.
The plaintiff sustained a serious shoulder injury that required surgery. The defense attempted to argue that she should have continued physical therapy instead—a claim the court did not permit. The trial also took an unusual turn when the defense attorney was caught coaching his witness in the courtroom.
Through a respectful but powerful cross-examination of the young defendant, and by strategically using the defense’s own medical expert to support the plaintiff’s case, Mazzei and McBryant built a compelling story for the jury. After the defense’s $300,000 offer was rejected, the jury returned a $350,000 verdict, which grew to $550,000 with interest and costs. Most importantly, the client felt justice was served.
- The Case: The case, titled “Hannasch versus the Bad Guys,” involved a client who was rear-ended on a highway exit ramp with a stop sign. The defendant claimed the client stopped unexpectedly and that there was no stop sign.
- The Cross-Examination: The attorney’s strategy was to be kind and patient during the cross-examination of the young, female defendant to avoid appearing as a bully. The jury later confirmed they appreciated this respectful approach.
- The Family Car Doctrine: The defendant’s father was brought into the case under the Family Car Doctrine because he owned the vehicle and she lived in his household. This allowed them to pursue a claim against him since the daughter’s insurance policy limits were too low.
- The Defense’s Expert Witness: The defense hired a doctor who ended up providing opinions that supported the plaintiff’s case, which allowed the plaintiff’s counsel to call him as a witness on their own behalf.
- A Strange Legal Tactic: The defense attorney dropped their “failure to mitigate” defense before the trial but then argued it in the opening statement. The plaintiff’s attorney objected to this tactic to preserve the record for a potential appeal.
- The Verdict: The final verdict was for $350,000, including $150,000 for economic losses, $100,000 for non-economic damages, and $100,000 for physical impairment. The jury also incorrectly considered health insurance coverage when deciding on the amount for future surgery.
- Final Payout: The total amount awarded to the client, including interest and costs, was $550,000, significantly more than the pre-trial offer of $300,000.
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
What is the “family car doctrine”?
The family car doctrine is a legal principle that can hold the head of a household responsible for a car accident caused by a family member using a vehicle they own, especially if the family member is a minor. This applies even if the parent was not present at the time of the crash.
How does the family car doctrine relate to insurance?
The family car doctrine is often invoked in cases where a minor family member causes a significant accident, and the parent’s insurance policy is pursued to cover damages. The video mentions that in one case, the father was brought into the lawsuit under this doctrine, partly because the daughter’s policy limits were too low.
What is a “failure to mitigate” defense?
This is a legal defense where the defendant argues that the plaintiff should not be awarded certain damages because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to minimize their own losses after the injury occurred. The video gives an example of a defendant arguing that the plaintiff should have pursued more physical therapy instead of a more expensive surgery.
Can a plaintiff’s legal team call a defense expert witness?
Yes, as the video demonstrates, if a defense expert’s opinions are favorable to the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff’s lawyers can cross-endorse the expert and call them to testify on their behalf.
How can you deal with an opposing counsel who uses a dropped defense in closing arguments?
The video explains that if a defense attorney argues a defense in closing that was previously dropped or agreed not to be argued, the opposing counsel can object and make sure the objection is noted on the record. This preserves the issue for a potential appeal.
Is it common for attorneys to prep their witnesses in the courtroom?
The video’s speaker noted that it is incredibly unusual and unprofessional for a defense attorney to openly prep a witness, especially by questioning the validity of their testimony, in the courtroom in front of the opposing legal team.
What happens when a jury’s verdict is higher than the pre-trial settlement offer?
When a jury’s verdict is higher than the last settlement offer, the plaintiff may be entitled to additional compensation, including interest and legal costs, on top of the awarded verdict amount.
How do clients typically feel after a long and emotional trial?
Clients can feel exhausted and emotionally drained, even after a favorable verdict. The video highlights that winning a trial is a rewarding feeling for the legal team, but for the client, it is often a relief from the stress of having their personal pain and life exposed in court.
