When ‘damages-only’ trials are the best option
by Michelle Lore
When Ronald and Patricia Braaten left southern Minnesota to deliver two brand new cement trucks to buyers in Arizona, they never imagined they’d end up in a large-scale auto accident.
The incident occurred in Dalhart, Texas, after Ronald had stopped the truck he was driving at a stop sign. Patricia was following behind in the second truck, when suddenly and without warning her brake pedal fell off. Unable to stop, Patricia plowed into the back of her husband’s truck. Several other vehicles became involved in the collision, including a livestock trailer. Both Patricia and Ronald suffered back injuries.
The manufacturer of Patricia’s truck denied responsibility for the accident up until two months before trial, when it acknowledged its liability. The company offered $150,000 to Ronald and $200,000 to Patricia to settle the matter, which they declined. A trial was subsequently held on the issues of damages only.
After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of $352,706 for Ron and $432,658 for Patricia.
So why would a defendant like the truck manufacturer acknowledge liability rather than roll the dice on that issue as well? Attorneys say there are a variety of scenarios when restricting a trial to damages only is the best option.
“I don’t want the jury focused on liability if it’s actually pretty clear,” said St. Paul defense attorney Paul W. Godfrey. “That can tend to irritate a jury.”
Save time, money
Practitioners say that “damages-only” trials are rare, because generally when a defendant admits liability, the parties can agree on the extent of the plaintiff’s damages. Once in a while, however, that doesn’t happen.
“In most cases it shouldn’t be that difficult, and in most cases, it isn’t that difficult, especially if people are knowledgeable and reasonable,” said Duluth defense attorney John D. Kelly. “But occasionally, you end up with legitimate differences that can’t be reconciled or resolved.”
Indeed, there may be advantages for both sides in trying a damages-only case.
“A damages case is less expensive to try,” said St. Paul plaintiffs’ attorney Leo Feeney. “It shortens the prep time and the trial time — and it’s less time for the jury to get bored.”
Bloomington attorney Paul Rambow agreed. “It really changes the trial dramatically,” he said, adding that since the issue of fault isn’t before the jury there is no need to call law enforcement or accident reconstructionists.
Most of the testimony in a damages-only trial comes from medical providers on the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries, or from economists and vocational experts if the plaintiff is claiming wage loss.
Albrecht said that in the Braaten case, however, he also utilized several lay witnesses — co-workers of the plaintiffs’ who testified to filling in for them at work, and to what they could do before the accident and what they could not do afterward. “They are just as important as doctors in cases like this,” he said.
Bleed-over effect
In some cases, admitting liability and trying only damages is a way to avoid having jurors hear from an unlikable defendant. Or, in cases of aggravated liability — like a car accident where one party was drinking — admitting responsibility allows the jury to concentrate on damages and not the acts that led to the crash.
“We use it to take emotion out of [the trial],” Godfrey pointed out.
Feeney agreed. “If damages only are tried, then damages won’t get tainted by what happened,” he said.
In effect, admitting liability may actually be a way for a defendant to mitigate damages.
If the jurors don’t like the defendant’s behavior or attitude, they may punish the defendant by giving the plaintiff a larger award, explained Minneapolis personal injury attorney Michael Zimmer. “There is a bleed-over effect,” he said.
Those are the cases where, as a plaintiff’s attorney, you hate to see the defendant admit responsibility, Zimmer acknowledged. “But my argument is that you can’t just admit liability with the hope that the jury only gets to hear part of the story,” he said, adding that jurors need to have a full understanding of what happened.
Reasonable relief
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say they almost always provide the jury with an amount they think would reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his or her damages in particular categories, like past and future medical expenses and wage loss, if applicable.
“I think it’s a mistake not to give them a number,” said Feeney. A jury can make an award and think it’s good and fair, when in actuality it’s very low, he explained.
Use a visual aid and provide a logical explanation for each of the damages categories, Rambow suggested. “Show them why the plaintiff should get this amount.”
When it comes to past and future pain and suffering, however, many plaintiffs’ attorneys prefer to suggest guidelines rather than hard numbers.
Defense attorneys usually give the jury an amount to contemplate as well.
“What you are trying to do is engage the jury in a reasonable assessment of the plaintiff’s claim,” said Kelly. “If you can’t be reasonable, don’t try that case. You may or may not convince a jury that your position is correct.”
Credibility is key
When trying a damages-only case, whether representing the plaintiff or the defendant, maintaining credibility with the jury is imperative.
“It’s particularly important to not be perceived to be overreaching,” said Kelly. He explained that most jurors come in reluctantly, having other things to do, and don’t want their time wasted. “You don’t want to present them with a frivolous characterization or assessment of the plaintiff’s harm,” he said. “If it’s a case of significant injury and you come in with a low-ball number, most times you can expect an unhappy result.”
Similarly, plaintiffs’ attorneys said that it’s important to have a likable client who can easily demonstrate his or her damages without exaggerating them.
“Credibility is incredibly important,” said Zimmer. “You hope your client is credible; that is key. … He or she had better be telling the truth and concede when there are things that hurt the case.”
Credible, sincere testimony from the plaintiff’s treating doctors is also important because it’s something that is difficult for a defendant to overcome, practitioners said.
Albrecht is convinced that these were all factors in the favorable award his clients received in the defective cement truck matter.
“The plaintiffs were nice people and believable,” he said. “And we had pretty good medical testimony to show they were in good health before the accident.”
