Beating Goliath - Season 5: Jeremy Dutton v. Foltz Welding, Ltd.

[00:00:05.07] - Host
Welcome back to Beating Goliath, a plaintiff's pursuit of justice. Today in our brand new podcast studio, we have Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard attorneys, Brian Salvi, Rob Kohen, and Emily Art. Brian, Rob, and Emily worked together on a case that resulted in the first ever plaintiff's verdict in Fayette County, Illinois. And not only was it the first verdict on record, but it was also an impressive 8-figure recovery for the client. These interviews were recorded separately, but have been edited together to tell one cohesive story. We hope you enjoy. Brian, thank you so much for being here.

[00:00:33.25] - Brian SalviSalvi, Schostok & Pritchard
Thanks for having me.

[00:00:34.28] - Host
Um, before we start, can you just give me a very brief overview of what this case was and what caused Jeremy's injuries?

[00:00:40.22] - Brian Salvi
So Jeremy's injuries, uh, are a little multifaceted in the sense that he was involved in this rear-end collision initially, suffered, you know, what he thought was kind of a whiplash strain in his neck. And so for, for several months, for a few months, it was kind of unknown exactly what was going on, but ultimately they diagnosed a cervical syrinx for Jeremy and the cervical syrinx in and of itself started to kind of compress and apply pressure to the spinal cord, which caused him a lot of pain, neuropathy in his hands and shoulders. But ultimately the big aspect of his injury is what occurred, in the surgery to drain the syrinx. And, because the procedure to drain the syrinx requires the surgeon to go into the spinal canal, and place this little drain. And as soon as you go into the spinal canal, you're causing damage to the spinal cord tissue. And as a result of that, you end up with all of these, problems that impact, not just pain signals, but also your function and sensory signals as well. And so, it, what started out and seemed like something small initially ended up evolving into something far more significant.

[00:01:55.10] - Rob Kohen
So the truck that hit him was an F-450, which is a big, you know, big work truck with a flatbed on the back of it. You see 'em probably like on a lot of farms, you know, and it's a big heavy-duty, super-duty truck. And the fact that it hit the back of Jeremy's truck, which was, you know, a big tractor-trailer, you'd think it wouldn't do a lot of damage. And when you look at the photos, actually, you know, you wouldn't tell initially, but if you look at the back of the truck, the back bar, which is meant for protection, was completely dented in. And in order to do that, you have to hit that bar with a tremendous amount of force. And so even though his truck didn't look like it had tremendous damage, if you take a look at the photos of the truck that hit him, that entire truck looks like it's an accordion and it's just completely smashed in. So you can tell the amount of force that was, uh, put on Jeremy's truck based on not only the, the the bar on his truck being smashed in, but also more importantly, the photos showing the truck that hit him and how bad the damage was there.

[00:02:56.22] - Host
So you mentioned he was diagnosed a few months later. Did he not go to the hospital right away after the accident? Was there no ambulance called?

[00:03:04.29] - Brian Salvi
So at the scene of, uh, the incident, the, the Highway Patrol shows up. They ask him if he needs to see any medical attention. He declines it at the time. And in fact, Jeremy doesn't just decline medical attention at the scene, He's in the middle, he's a long-haul truck driver and he's in the middle of a route, uh, on his way from Arkansas to Cincinnati and he's in, and the crash occurs in Illinois and he finishes his route. So he, he travels another couple thousand miles finishing his route to Cincinnati and then back, uh, to Arkansas, which took him another couple of days. And so he doesn't see anyone for 10 days following the incident, uh, because he thought it was a strain. He thought it would go away. And so he kind of got home about 4 or 5 days after the crash and then waited another 5 days to kind of see how his pain evolved before actually seeing a, uh, an urgent care clinic. And then from there he got, uh, connected with an orthopedic surgeon and then everything just kind of got diagnosed from there. So there was this period of time where he thought he wasn't injured, he didn't seek medical attention, and ultimately that became the, the primary defenses in the case.

[00:04:11.21] - Host
So after Jeremy gets home from finishing his route, did he then seek treatment? You said 10 days later, was he work— did he stop working at that 10 days or when did he kind of pull back from trucking?

[00:04:23.25] - Brian Salvi
So he gets back from his route after the crash happens. He gets home about, again, 4 days, I think afterwards. And then he kind of sits around for 5 days and he's kind of just monitoring himself, monitoring his symptoms. He, he contacts his employer and says, hey, you know, I'm still dealing with these issues from that crash last week. I'm still I'm not feeling great. And so hold off on giving me any new routes. 'Cause again, as a long-haul truck driver, if he gets a route, it's not like, hey, can you do this quick route for a couple of hours? He's gone for, you know, typically from anywhere from 8 to 11 days are his routes. So if he was going to accept a new job, it would be quite a challenge for him given his condition. And so at that point, his work was kind of just on hold.

[00:05:08.22] - Rob Kohen
Initially, they just said, you know, you're sore, let's monitor this. Let's see what's going on. You know, they kind of thought it was some kind of strain or sprain, just something that was causing some muscle issues. And so for a little while, it wasn't a great concern. It just seemed like, hey, you were in a really bad crash and, you know, you had some really bad whiplash injuries. Your body was kind of flung forward, and that is to be expected when you're hit as hard as he was hit. And so initially, he didn't think much of it at the time.

[00:05:41.04] - Host
Was it his choice to take a step back from trucking, or are there certain regulations that didn't allow him to drive while he is on the medications and in pain?

[00:05:49.03] - Emily Art
It's twofold. Not only did he not feel capable to operate a truck safely just based on his pain, but also the amount of medications he was on, the type of medications he was on just wouldn't allow him to, you know, operate a vehicle of that size and of that nature.

[00:06:02.29] - Brian Salvi
And then after he had his initial appointment and got a referral into or orthopedic spine surgeon, and then ultimately a neurosurgeon through work comp. Through that process, he had an MRI, and once the MRI, which was in October, so a couple months, uh, later, once the MRI revealed the cervical syrinx, that's when he was formally taken off of work. So he was kind of informally taken off of work saying, hey, listen, I don't think my symptoms are going to let me do an 8 to 11 day trip. And so it was just kind of touch and go, let's figure out what's going on with your neck. And then once they diagnosed the syrinx, formal restriction from work.

[00:06:40.27] - Host
Was there anything that you stressed at trial for why this is particularly a terrible injury for a truck driver?

[00:06:48.23] - Brian Salvi
Terrible injury for a truck driver, terrible injury for Jeremy in particular, because Jeremy discussed, described his affinity for truck driving during trial. He really looked at truck driving as, as a means of freedom for himself.. And he really, really enjoyed working. He enjoyed being a provider to his family and, and not only being a provider, but he enjoyed the job that he chose in truck driving. And, and, uh, I know his, his father and, uh, great-grandfather and other uncles were also truck drivers. So he had a sense of pride about truck driving as well.

[00:07:24.20] - Rob Kohen
It was very clear both to Brian and myself, uh, in talking to him and meeting him, and not only to us as his lawyers, but it also was very clear to this jury that, that truck driving was Jeremy's life, right? There's a lot of people who have jobs who, you know, they do the job and, and they go and, and, you know, they clock in, they clock out, and it's a job. But for Jeremy, I think he genuinely loved being on the road. He talked about even at trial just the experiences of going different places, seeing different people. He had buddies from, you know, kind of all over the country that he meet along the way, some of which actually came in and testified. One of his truck driving friends came in and talked to the jury about, you know, seeing Jeremy on the road. And, you know, they would talk, you know, sometimes for hours, you know, while they were on the road over their, you know, over their system. And so it was very clear that Jeremy just loved doing his job. And the fact that he can't do it or couldn't do it was very upsetting.

[00:08:19.19] - Brian Salvi
And so the development of the neuropathic pain and most importantly, the development of the proprioception where he can't feel his hands and feet in space. The neurosurgeons described it perfectly at trial to the jury where it's like you're just describing a circumstance where this is a dangerous person to be behind the wheel of a car. He should be restricted to only driving during the day, personal vehicles on short trips, like if he has to run to the convenience store for something. That's what he should be limited in doing because it would just straight up be dangerous for himself and for others on the road to be a truck driver. So the formal, um, the formal restriction for truck driving for Jeremy was, was quite devastating to him. And I think it was, it was really communicated well by Jeremy himself at trial when he described again this sense of freedom that truck driving provided him, because he would talk about how he's seen every part of the country, right? He's seen the, the West, he's seen the Pacific, uh, North Coast, he's seen the Midwest, he's gone up east, he's gone to the South, and he feels like he's gotten a, a real appreciation for the country that he lives in.

[00:09:22.19] - Brian Salvi
And so all of these things were kind of wrapped up in the story of why he loved truck driving and what he felt like he lost in his life as a result of being restricted from doing it going forward.

[00:09:33.12] - Host
So you had mentioned earlier that the act— his worst injury was caused by the surgery he had. Why was the doctor never brought in as a defendant? Or was that ever brought up by the defense? Like the doctor should be the one that's liable?

[00:09:48.01] - Brian Salvi
It's a really good question and it was one of the main things that we were concerned about when we were going into trial, which is that we had to make sure that the jury understood that the way Jeremy got to where he is today, where it's permanent pain, permanent neuropathic pain into his extremities that limits his ability to function. Sensory problems that send pain signals in an over-exaggerated way to his brain. And then, a big thing was the development of proprioception, which is a concept where based on damage to your spinal cord and your nervous system, you lose your place in space, which is to say that if you're sitting in a chair, you close your eyes, I can feel where my hands are, I can feel where my feet are. And, if I move them around where the chair is, I have a sense of where I am relative to things around me.

[00:10:36.04] - Host
Okay.

[00:10:36.25] - Brian Salvi
And so the surgery to drain the syrinx requires the surgeon to go into the spinal cord, cut into the spinal cord. And as a result of Jeremy's procedure, given its location in his cervical spine, proprioception is one of the things that he developed after the surgery.

[00:10:55.09] - Host
Okay.

[00:10:55.14] - Brian Salvi
And it has nothing to do with whether or not the surgeon performed the surgery correctly. And so all of the opinions, all of our analysis and review of the case and discussion with fellow neurosurgeons instructed us that this neurosurgeon performed the surgery correctly.

[00:11:11.08] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:11:11.22] - Brian Salvi
And it's just the nature of the surgery that leaves patients in, unfortunately, a permanently disabled state.

[00:11:19.27] - Host
It's a common side effect of the surgery.

[00:11:22.05] - Brian Salvi
Absolutely. It's almost like a necessary side effect of the surgery.

[00:11:24.29] - Host
Okay.

[00:11:25.09] - Brian Salvi
And it's, and if you look at the chronology of the development of the syringe, which was originally identified for Jeremy in October, Mm-hmm. He doesn't have the surgery to drain the syrinx until April.

[00:11:35.10] - Host
Okay.

[00:11:35.19] - Brian Salvi
And part of the reason why is his neurosurgeon is waiting and saying, you know, if this thing will start to kind of drain on its own or shrink on its own, that's the better outcome. Because if I have to go in and operate, you're gonna be left with problems. And so they held on as long as they could. And then what ultimately happened is as time went on, Jeremy started to lose function in his legs and started to lose a little function in his bowel and bladder. And as soon as that happened, snapped into action, they did the surgery. And so those issues were thankfully starved off. So, you know, he doesn't really have long-term issues there, but the permanent pain, the permanent neuropathy, and then the proprioception, those are the major things that Jeremy was left with. And because of that, you know, it, it led to a lot of problems, including his inability to work anymore, but it had nothing to do with the doctor's conduct. The surgery was performed correctly. It's just the nature of surgery.

[00:12:32.29] - Host
Man, that's, it's like you choose the lesser of two evils.

[00:12:36.15] - Brian Salvi
That's exactly right. And so, you know, you can imagine the circumstance if you're a patient like Jeremy, if you're getting told, listen, you have this fluid-filled sac in your spinal cord.

[00:12:46.19] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:12:47.17] - Brian Salvi
It's going to impact you the way it currently is because during that time before the surgery, he's still neuropathic pain, pain in his neck, uh, diminished function, over, uh, sensitivity to stimuli. All those things are just what he's dealing with, and the surgeon's like, okay, the only way we can prevent it from getting catastrophically worse where you lose function in your legs is if we cut into your spinal cord and you're left with all these problems permanently. And so it's a really, uh, really challenging thing for a plaintiff to navigate in terms of basically signing yourself up for a lifetime of problems, uh, just to starve off a potentially catastrophic result.

[00:13:30.10] - Host
And especially for someone who drives for a living. I mean, this sounds like it's dangerous, not only for himself, but other people on the road. Was there any chance that he made his own injuries worse by not going to the hospital right away? So that was that an issue at all?

[00:13:43.09] - Brian Salvi
That's a good question. It wasn't articulated or opined on by the defense. So it's not what they, they didn't take the position that Jeremy made things worse by not seeking medical treatment right away. They, they took more of the position that the crash itself was insufficient from a force perspective to cause this kind of significant injury, and that a cervical syrinx is not something you would get from a relatively minor crash like this one was. And so that was the primary defense in the case. They didn't really take the tech that Jeremy made things worse for himself.

[00:14:18.17] - Host
Do you think they chose that defense because that's what they would've done in any venue, or did that have anything to do with it being a smaller county?

[00:14:25.24] - Brian Salvi
It's a good question because I think there are a couple of factors that lead into it. So one of the things that happened early on in Jeremy's treatment with that was that he saw a, a neurosurgeon as part of his workers' comp case.

[00:14:38.17] - Host
Okay.

[00:14:38.21] - Brian Salvi
And that neurosurgeon was hired by his work comp carrier. And he initially said, yeah, I think these injuries are related to the crash. But then once the syrinx was drained and the surgery was done and kind of the long-term nature of Jeremy's problems was realized. They then took the position from the— with, with the neurosurgeon to say, you know, actually the cervical syrinx and the significant extent of damages that Jeremy has, it just can't be correlated with this minor car crash. And so I think once they recognized the long-term implications of Jeremy's injury, they decided to go on the full defense on causation, where in my opinion, I think the, the better approach probably would have been a recognizing the injuries as significant and just kind of saying, we just don't think it's worth as much money as you say. And so in that context, I think the venue did have something to do with how they approached the defense.

[00:15:33.07] - Host
So while we're on the venue, can you describe, um, Fayette County and why it's a little different than trying a case in Cook?

[00:15:40.05] - Brian Salvi
Sure. Yeah. So the, the main thing there is just the size of the county and then the nature of how the county operates. And what I mean by that is that this is a county of 22,000 people. 10,000 registered voters. So you're talking about, you know, because your jury pool is, is based on who's a registered voter. So, so that's our jury pool is only 10,000 people. It's also a prison town. There's a big prison in the town, in the county. And so what we learned through our due diligence in the lead-up to trial and then at trial is that a lot of people are either directly or indirectly connected with the prison system. And so because of that, it's, it's kind of a tight-knit community. And, and we certainly learned that, um, through the extent, uh, or through jury election when we, we got into a little bit about who the defendant is, and I know we'll talk about that a little bit more, but you know, this venue, uh, was, was a little bit of a question mark primarily because there were quite literally, there had never been a plaintiff's verdict in the county as far as we could tell by the historical record keeping.

[00:16:44.28] - Brian Salvi
And so we're, as, as you can imagine, when you have a case in Cook County or a county with a lot of cases and a lot of results, settlements, verdicts, otherwise, You can use similar cases as a reference point for, for how verdicts might end up in a particular case, in a particular venue. Um, but for, for this case, for Jeremy's case in Fayette County, you know, we didn't have that. We didn't have any data to use as part of our risk analysis on the value of the case. It was just kind of based on how we felt about Jeremy, how we felt about the facts, and how we felt we could execute a trial. So the question of what would a Fayette County jury do in a case like this was a, was a total question mark. And so at the end of the day, that ended up, more of a pro than a con, I think.

[00:17:27.18] - Host
Yeah. And I'm sure we'll get to that, how you guys set the precedent. But I have two questions from what you just said. Um, one, why do you think there were no plaintiff's verdicts prior to this? And then two, um, when you describe it as a prison town, does that mean people work at the prison or know people that work at the prison, or— I'm picturing inmates. Is it?

[00:17:49.01] - Brian Salvi
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The Well, I'll, I'll, I'll take your second question first, which is that yes. So for example, our jury was 9 women and 3 men. And if I'm remembering correctly, 2 of the men worked at the prison in some security fashion. And then at least 2 or 3 of the women on our jury, I think one of them worked as like an administrator at it. And then 2 of the other women, if I'm remembering correctly, their husbands worked at the prison.

[00:18:17.05] - Host
Okay.

[00:18:17.15] - Brian Salvi
So I think 4 or 5 of our jurors had some connection to that. And so, I mean, when you're talking about a town of 22,000 people and you've got one business that, you know, employs a couple thousand, you know, you're gonna get those percentages, especially as you're talking about, you know, people who are probably more likely to become registered voters, participate in the voting process, because again, that's, that's the pool from which we, we pull our jurors. And so, Again, it was something we knew going in and we wanted to kind of use it to our benefit from the perspective of, hey, listen, this, if this is a town of law and order, all we're looking for is reasonable people who can follow the law in this case. And so we're going to give you the law, we're going to walk you through it, and you couldn't follow the law. And so I think we kind of leaned into it a little bit in that respect.

[00:19:01.25] - Host
Why do you think there have been no plaintiff's verdicts prior to this?

[00:19:05.11] - Brian Salvi
One, you need volume of cases, right? You know, unfortunately things need to happen where lawsuits get filed, um, where insurance companies and defendants don't want to settle a case. And so it goes into litigation. That requires occurrences, right? Things gotta happen.

[00:19:21.17] - Rob Kohen
I think that's probably just due to the nature of the size of the county and probably the location of the county. You know, the more people that you have living in an area, the more likely it is that there's gonna be some incident, the more vehicles on the road, you know, Imagine Cook County and look at, look at any highway, look at any road. There's, you know, thousands of cars on the roadway at one time. And so just the sheer odds of an incident happening are obviously more likely when you, when you're in a bigger area. So I think just the odds of something happening are smaller there, you know, and then I would imagine that there are probably incidents that do happen in the area. Uh, and my guess would be that there are some folks who may decide you know, for whatever reason, this is something that I don't want to pursue. Or, you know, maybe a lawsuit isn't for me. Maybe they just don't know. Maybe they don't see, you know, what options they have. You know, maybe it may just not be as prevalent in that area. So I think there's a lot of factors that go into the fact that there's just less lawsuits in general.

[00:20:20.15] - Rob Kohen
And so when you have less lawsuits, there's much, much less likelihood of less verdicts.

[00:20:25.24] - Brian Salvi
From the perspective of any claimant in Fayette County, because of the unknowns of going all the way to verdict and the unknowns of what a jury will do based on the lack of historical data. I can, I can imagine how that would act as a deterrent for lawyers who have cases in that county and they're asking themselves the question, how hard am I gonna push? How risky is it to go to trial? What kind of value can I get outta this case at trial? I think those questions start to weigh on lawyers as trial approaches, and then it ultimately pushes into settlement. And, and trust me when I say it was absolutely a variable for us. It was definitely something that we were, had, we had in the back of our minds, and it was a major contributing factor into how we valued the case for settlement negotiation purposes.

[00:21:11.03] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:21:11.19] - Brian Salvi
But ultimately it was just the defense couldn't get to where we were and we were willing to, to kind of take our shot.

[00:21:18.17] - Host
Did you know that Jeremy would be a likable plaintiff just based on how much he loves trucking? And especially in this venue, it sounds like maybe it's a, smaller town, maybe people appreciate that mindset a little bit more.

[00:21:30.01] - Brian Salvi
100%. One of the things that we were most confident about in terms of going to trial, and, and really I think that this is a, a something to be considered on every single trial.

[00:21:40.00] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:21:40.19] - Brian Salvi
If you're gonna go to trial, you have to have a plaintiff who's going to be received well. They don't need to be the most likable person in the world. They don't need to be warm and fuzzy.

[00:21:48.05] - Rob Kohen
You know, mm-hmm.

[00:21:48.24] - Brian Salvi
People can be prickly, but you, you have to have somebody who the jury's gonna be able to understand. Right? You have to be able to take the plaintiff's story and communicate it to the jury in a way that makes them understand what their life was before and then how their injury has really impacted them. And so one of the things that made us as confident as we were in going to trial is because of who Jeremy was as a person. You know, he's this, this, this kind of lovable character, lives in the South. He's got this little Southern drawl, but he's got a smile on his face all the time. And the way he would describe things, including and especially his family, hunting, and truck driving, uh, he would do it in, in kind of a poetic way, but he would do it in the right way, right? He would do it in a way that would really kind of invite people into his, uh, version of things and his perspective on things. And because he was kind of cut from the same cloth as what we understood our venue to be and the jurors that we were going to have, That made us just that much more comfortable in going to trial versus, you know, if we had had a, you know, investment banker from Chicago, it may, may have, you know, changed a little bit of our perspective on how we were going to approach presenting him at trial.

[00:23:04.19] - Brian Salvi
But for Jeremy, it was just be yourself because it's, it's just undeniably likable.

[00:23:10.07] - Rob Kohen
Jeremy, uh, definitely one of my favorite human beings. Uh, he is probably the most outdoorsy person, uh, that I've ever met. Uh, he loves to hunt. He used to really enjoy going to bull riding competitions. His kids were really big into bull riding, so was he, uh, when he was younger. And, you know, he got a little bit older and, and, you know, it was a little harder for him to do that, but he loved going to the rodeo. He loved riding ATVs. But, but hunting and being outdoors, uh, was his big passion, in which he spent probably every weekend or every other weekend doing something outdoors with, with friends or family. And that was very apparent that that was what was very important to Jeremy.

[00:23:47.10] - Host
So in addition to this impacting his work life, how did this also take a toll on his personal life with hobbies, parenting, just living day to day?

[00:23:57.24] - Emily Art
It sounds extreme, but in every aspect of his life, it was impacted in any, any way possible. You know, even the simple task of getting out of bed, you know, you think, oh, I'm late for work, got to go. You just shoot out of bed, go to the you know, go take your shower, get ready. It wasn't like that for him anymore. Just mobility-wise, he couldn't move as well. And if he did, he was in pain. I remember one story he told us was he's like, I thought I could just at least tag along. You know, I knew I wasn't going to go and physically hunt, but I thought I want to watch my kids, you know. And unfortunately, he got to the hunting grounds. And just from that car ride alone, he said, I don't know if I can can even walk another 100 feet, to be honest. And so it impacted every aspect. And I think the saddest part and the most heavy part for him was he felt like his younger son was impacted the most based on when his injury occurred and the age of his youngest son. He thought, you know, these were kind of his son's prime years and getting into rodeoing and hunting.

[00:25:03.15] - Host
And he had shown his kids quite literally the ropes of, of all this and just couldn't be involved as much.

[00:25:10.13] - Host
Um, I wanna back up just slightly. Did the defense ever admit negligence? I know you mentioned that you guys couldn't meet on a settlement that you felt was appropriate, but did they admit that they were at fault?

[00:25:21.03] - Brian Salvi
Yes, they admitted negligence in this case right before trial. I mean, this is a rear-end collision where the defendant driver didn't really have an explanation as to why he wasn't, you know, paying attention at the time he crashed into Jeremy's 18-wheeler. And so there wasn't really a defense on the conduct that led to the collision. So eventually they did admit negligence, but they were maintaining the full defense on causation, which is to say that the— what they thought was a minor collision could not have been, um, the cause for what ultimately was a devastating injury.

[00:25:56.07] - Host
Do you feel like you have to be a little more creative in your storytelling, I guess? In those situations?

[00:26:01.11] - Emily Art
Yeah, certainly. You definitely have to kind of readjust where your peaks are because I think a lot of times the negligence portion of a case is where you get the jury to kind of get riled up and get angry and be like, how did that guy do that? That's so not okay. You know, that's against the rules that we've put in place as a society of how you operate a vehicle or, you know, operate a company. So that portion, you know, usually kind of gets the blood boiling of the jury and that's one peak. And then, you kind of fall back down to the damages and you think, oh my God, I feel horrible for this person. And, you know, the injury that they went through, we don't have that kind of blood-boiling moment. You know, how do you bring a dynamic kind of emotional array to the jury when now you're only talking about causation, as did this collision cause the injuries, and then the injuries themselves? It feels a little heavier because the focus is so much on the damages. So you kind of have to play with what can you get from this treater, what can you get from this expert to create a new dynamic to tell still a full story.

[00:27:10.10] - Brian Salvi
But it also, in my opinion, it allows us to say to the jurors, you know, hey, listen, use your common sense and experiences in everyday life. You understand how litigation goes, you understand how these cases go. If there was any way that the defense could defend the conduct of their driver in this case, they would have done it. They couldn't do it, and so they admitted negligence. Okay, so I try to use it as kind of like, hey, listen, I'm not allowed to tell you about the conduct, but you all know if they admit it was probably pretty bad. So that's the kind of way you can weave it into, you know, opening statement and closing argument when they want to get up and say, hey, listen, we acknowledge we're taking responsibility here. We're at fault. You got us. You know, they try to use it as a way of saying, you know, we're being responsible. Don't hold it against us. We're holding our hands up and saying we're at fault. And so I think it is incumbent on the lawyer when you have an oppor— or when you are given that and, and it requires you to narrow some of the issues in the case, you have to weave it into the case in other ways.

[00:28:08.15] - Host
Mm-hmm. So when that happens as a lawyer, do you breathe a sigh of relief that they admit negligence, or do you kind of think, well, shoot, no, I can't bring this up directly?

[00:28:18.01] - Brian Salvi
I think you always want an admission of negligence, right?

[00:28:20.28] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:28:21.10] - Brian Salvi
You can get up and say the defendant admitted they were wrong.

[00:28:23.27] - Rob Kohen
Okay.

[00:28:24.02] - Brian Salvi
That's a pretty powerful thing, uh, at trial when you can stare at the jurors and say, listen, If there was a chance to defend this, they would have. They're not. What does that tell you? I think that's a pretty powerful thing. So I think ultimately you do want to get an admission when you have the opportunity. The only caveat to that, I would say, is if the conduct is so egregious or the conduct is to such an extent where there are just some aggravating facts that you want to make sure get to the jury, you have to figure out a way to weave those facts into either the causation or the damages case. And so one of the ways to do it, uh, in, in, in this case and in other cases, which is to say that, you know, one of the things we like to do is to talk about the preventability of the incident. And so you could imagine with a plaintiff, if they have this kind of realization, like anybody, if you're sitting around, it's not like You know, you're walking down the street and you got struck by lightning and you can just say, oh, what are the chances?

[00:29:28.06] - Brian Salvi
How did this happen? Oh my goodness. When they admit negligence, it's saying, yeah, I was wrong. I did this to you.

[00:29:35.13] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:29:36.02] - Brian Salvi
And, and as a plaintiff, that carries weight as well, right? When you wake up and you're like, great, I'm gonna live for the next 40 years with this pain in my neck. And it is everything because on this one day, this one person just decided not to pay attention. The easiest thing in the world they could do is just pay attention and they didn't pay attention. And because they didn't pay attention, now I'm dealing with this for the next 40 years. And so you can weave in little aspects of the liability case, uh, to the damages case to make sure you're able to talk about certain things at trial. And so I think in that sense, it's always good to be able to say, hey, listen, they're admitting they're negligent. And hey, here are some aspects of the conduct that really are still weighing on the plaintiff from a damages perspective, so that you keep those things incorporated in the case, even though you might be having some of the issues, uh, from a conduct perspective sliced up a little bit and narrowed by virtue of the admission.

[00:30:31.10] - Host
Was jury selection any different between the two counties?

[00:30:34.22] - Emily Art
A little bit, mainly I think because a lot of the judges have their own procedure of how many people they'll bring in, in a panel, and how you can, you know, there's something called backstriking that some judges allow, some judges don't. So it wasn't really too different due to the county, but just judge's preference. You know, all judges do it their own way and have their preferences.

[00:30:55.20] - Brian Salvi
I think the number one thing you have to be thinking about when you're going in front of a jury for jury selection is that this is the first impression, right? When you stand up and say, hi everybody, you know, I'm Attorney Brian Salvia. I'm going to ask you some questions right now. You're getting first impression with a jury. And when you're dealing with a conservative venue, for example, so we had jury questionnaires, a handwritten form that they filled out. And then, so then they fill that out during the first, you know, 45 minutes of the day. And then we get the stack of papers and we take a look at it and that kind of just kind of helps instruct what we ask when we get up. It streamlines our questions a bit. And so that's why we do it. Quite literally the first page, the first juror in the first seat in this venire, it was a man in his late 60s. And the form said, this was filled, uh, uh, I cannot read or write. I've lived on a farm literally my entire life. This has been filled out by his wife Shirley.

[00:31:55.15] - Brian Salvi
And then Shirley signed the document and says, you know, I'm not sure I, I'm fit for, uh, this case because, you know, I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to read things. I'm not sure, you know, I'm just a farmer and this is all I've ever done. So that's my first person who I'm asking questions to.

[00:32:09.07] - Host
And so do you believe that or do you think he just didn't want to be there?

[00:32:11.02] - Brian Salvi
It's probably a little bit of both. Yeah. You know, and so, you know, I get that part of it too. It also instructs me that this is a guy he clearly doesn't want to be on this jury. Right. He'd rather wake up and work the farm every day and he doesn't want to come in to court to listen to some truck driver's story.

[00:32:26.18] - Rob Kohen
Okay.

[00:32:26.23] - Brian Salvi
So that's, that's helpful for me to know too. And so, you know, thinking through, again, I mentioned earlier, it's a prison town. It's a farming town. Thinking through those aspects of it, mm-hmm. Uh, it instructs the way you kind of use analogies. For example, you know, maybe I don't use a cup of coffee, maybe I use the price of eggs, right? When trying to talk about the value of the dollar or something like that. But generally speaking, when you're approaching a venue like this, you, you want to primarily maintain your own credibility because I assumed that when I stood up and started talking, it didn't take long for the jury to know that I wasn't a Fayette County lawyer.

[00:33:04.06] - Brian Salvi
And so I'm not a local. And so I have to— and during this first impression, I have to just maintain my own credibility. I want to try to just be nice, ask questions about their lives, and learn what I can from them. Um, but you know, there, there are a lot of wrinkles in, in small venues like this, which in part we ran into, uh, in a significant way, which is that because it's a small town and a lot of people know each other, when you start talking about the witnesses in the case, you learn about who the county already knows about, who the jurors already know about it. And so in this particular case, I mean, we had a circumstance that I'm not sure I'll experience again in my career, which is— it was quite legitimately like a courtroom scene that you would see on a TV show or a movie where like, you know, where something happens in court and then the gallery just breaks out and whispers, shh! Everybody's talking. And this happened to us during jury selection, which is that The defendant truck driver, the guy who hit Jeremy's truck, he is the brother of the chief of police in Fayette County, and his name is Benjamin Ray, but he goes by Benji and just has gone by Benji his whole life and apparently has grown up in the town his whole life.

[00:34:15.19] - Brian Salvi
And so one of the things that we were concerned about is that when you have a venue with kind of a tight-knit community and the defendant is part of that community, you're going to have kind of that thought process of like, is this community just going to kind of protect their own?

[00:34:29.10] - Host
Right.

[00:34:29.29] - Brian Salvi
And so that was a concern of ours. And there— and that concern was probably

[00:34:33.28] - Brian Salvi
especially a sheriff's— a sheriff's—

[00:34:35.26] - Brian Salvi
yeah, somebody in law enforcement, right? In a law enforcement town. And so, you know, we were concerned about it going into jury selection, but then my concern kind of spiked through the roof during jury selection because we get to the point in jury selection where I'm kind of going through the list of witnesses in the case and I say, you know, Benjamin Ray, does anybody know Benjamin Ray? And everybody kind of just says no. No.

[00:34:56.07] - Brian Salvi
And then one person kind of realizes who I'm talking about and says, do you mean Benji? And I go, yes, Benji. He sometimes goes by Benji Ray. And the courtroom like explodes in commentary and shh, shh, shh. It's like, I'd say 60% of the Baniyer knew. And the judge kind of got involved. The judge is like, all right, all right. Quiet down. Quiet down. By a show of hands, how many people have heard of the name or know of, or know someone who knows Benji Ray, and 60% of the venire throws their hands up. And during that moment, I kind of just kind of smile and I'm just like, all right, well, Judge, we, we need to go talk about this. And so we go in the back and we kind of talk through the best way to navigate. And the judge comes up with some good ideas, uh, on how to do it. And, and he starts to just filter people through, like, how many people actually know him versus how many people have just heard his name, and how many people have only heard his name because of his brother who's the chief of police.

[00:35:51.23] - Brian Salvi
And so we were able to navigate it in a way that was, that was helpful. And then I think ultimately maybe 2 or 3 people acknowledged, you know, hey, I'm a little too close to Benji, or I have a relationship with them, or, you know, my brother-in-law has a relationship with them. And so I've seen him at cookouts and stuff like that. And so we were able to get a few people off the jury based on that. But it's certainly something I'll remember for the rest of my career is, is just the the realization from the entire venire on who the defendant is and then having to navigate that?

[00:36:24.13] - Rob Kohen
I have never been in that situation where, like, yeah, I don't— I'm trying to think if I've had a case where I had a juror actually know, you know, anybody or had any connection. And I mean, I'm sure I have, but definitely not to this extent. And so what— and it wasn't just, uh, that they knew the chief of police, but there were also a tremendous amount of people that actually knew or knew of the defendant himself. And again, that's a lot of that is due to the nature of the size of the community we were in. And so that was definitely a new experience, I know, for Brian, for myself, and we had to figure out how to deal with that on the fly. We had a sidebar right after that happened. The judge was like, all right, let's take a break. And he pulled all the attorneys back in the back room to try to figure out how we were going to navigate this, this situation where all these jurors knew that, you know, knew the defendant. So it was definitely an interesting jury selection that I had never seen before.

[00:37:15.21] - Host
So earlier you said that you've never had a case that you can recall where you had a plaintiff or a defendant that was widely known. Is this kind of how you handle when you have a case against the City of Chicago? Like, are you able to be unbiased because everyone knows the city? So when they're the defendant, is that like a question you ask the jurors?

[00:37:36.24] - Rob Kohen
Yeah, I mean, you know, when there's a— especially when there's, you know, whether it's a city or like a big corporation, you know, I won't name any corporations, but, you know, we know that there's massive corporations who everybody in the country would know who they were. And so if you were to ask, does anyone know who, you know, Company X is? Sure. Who Google is? Every single person in the courtroom would raise their hand. And so just because you know of the company, you know, doesn't mean that you can't be a fair and impartial juror to serve on it.

[00:38:03.01] - Host
Were there any other moments in trial that really stuck out to you as either something kind of funny like that or emotional where you thought, okay, we, we have the jury?

[00:38:12.19] - Brian Salvi
Yes, it was about halfway through the case. Uh, Jeremy's wife Linda took the stand. And again, at this point in the case, the jury had gotten a little bit of an understanding as to his injury and the impact, but it really hadn't been— Jeremy had not yet taken the stand. And so, the full kind of realization of the impact on, on Jeremy and his family hadn't been, um, you know, brought to the jury yet. And so then Linda testifies, and during Linda's testimony, I show her a picture of, uh, it's like a Christmas card picture that she took with Jeremy and their kids from, I think, a year or two before the crash. And it was a really, really cute photo on their property of the three boys, including Jeremy. They're wearing jeans, a button-down blue shirt, and a cowboy hat, and so they're all matching. And then Linda and their daughter are wearing, you know, matching dresses. It's It's really, and they're all holding hands across, so it's this really cute picture. And I showed that to Linda, um, during her direct exam and said, you know, just kind of talk me through this picture, why it was taken, what it means to you.

[00:39:14.02] - Brian Salvi
It was before the crash. And then, you know, we put the, Linda puts the picture down and we move on with the direct examination. I get maybe, you know, a handful of questions down the road and there's an objection, uh, to the testimony that she's about to bring. I think she was about to talk about his medical condition. And so we have a sidebar and, um, and so this is what is so fun and fascinating about trial is that, you know, a lot of times the, the nuggets that really make or break the case are things that you have really nothing to do with. And that's certainly the case here, uh, in the story I'm describing, because what I came to learn after the fact by, uh, Emily, our associate, and, uh, Caesar, our IT manager on all our trials. So they were still in the courtroom while we went back for the sidebar. And what they described to me was that while, you know, me and Rob and defense counsel and the judge are in the back arguing about this upcoming testimony, we're back there for, I don't know, 3, 4 minutes. And during that 3 to 4 minute time frame, you know, the courtroom's just silent. Everyone's just kind of have to awkwardly sit there in silence. They can't interact with each other. And so they just sit there, and apparently— I, I wasn't there for it, so I'm just taking from what Cesar and Emily told me— but apparently what happened was, is that as we're sitting there, uh, Linda's on the stand. She's just waiting for us to come back out, and she grabs the photo that I had just shown her.

[00:40:35.09] - Emily Art
You could tell it just— there's a look on her face when she was looking at those photos during that break that you could tell she was going back in time mentally. She was just kind of dazed almost, and lost in that picture. And she A few tears dropped from her eyes, and it was just the silence too that kind of was heavy in the room. And after that, I think we, we captured the jury and was— were able to explain to them and show them not only is this impact on Jeremy's life, but his wife, who's had to endure a man that, you know, she once knew as being this very lively, outgoing person, completely transform into someone she didn't recognize. I think That was really powerful for them, for the jury to see. And really, you really get to see the long-arm impact of this type of situation where you don't expect to be incapacitated due to a collision, just, you know, on your random day at work. And it was a really big turning point, I think, for us, because I think that was the first moment that we thought, okay, I think they're with us. I think they're— I think they're picking up what we're putting down, and I think they're really now listening with, with a, with a viewpoint from our perspective.

[00:42:00.03] - Brian Salvi
And so it's no testimony. Yeah, the lawyers and the judge aren't even in the room. The court reporter's not taking anything down. But what Cesar and Emily described to me was that as Linda was sitting there wiping her eyes as she stared at the photos, All 12 members of the jury were just locked in on her.

[00:42:18.21] - Host
Wow.

[00:42:18.28] - Brian Salvi
They were just looking right at her and she was looking at the photo. And so then I used that.

[00:42:24.02] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:42:24.22] - Brian Salvi
I used that. Emily and Cesar told me about it. And so then during closing argument, I remind them of that. You know, I remind them I wasn't even in the courtroom for this, but apparently Linda was transported in time to a life where her husband wasn't injured.

[00:42:39.07] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:42:39.21] - Brian Salvi
And she didn't have to work. 50 hours a week. She could work part-time and still be there for her kids. And now she's working more than full-time. She's working overtime and not spending time with her kids. And so it allowed me to really get into the ripple effect of having a partner undergo an injury like this and be disabled like this. And it really teed up Jeremy's testimony, too, because then Jeremy testified the following day. And one of the best parts of his testimony was when he got to a point talking about how his injuries had impacted his relationship with Linda. And one of the things he said was, she didn't sign up for this. She didn't sign up for a husband who couldn't do things, who couldn't provide, who couldn't take the kids out, who couldn't help around the house. She signed up for a partner who was going to be there with her. And so it helped just drive home the fact that Jeremy is severely impacted, but so is everybody else in Jeremy's orbit. And I think that was particularly powerful for this jury, because as I mentioned earlier, this was a jury of 9 women and 3 men. And I think that Linda providing that testimony on how devastating it was for her and the family really helped with the 9 women on our jury. And it helped them kind of get a deeper appreciation and understanding for how bad this really was for the family.

[00:44:00.01] - Host
And the defense is the one that raised the issue that caused the break, right? So it's not like they could have argued that you guys had staged that whole thing.

[00:44:08.03] - Brian Salvi
Oh gosh. Yeah. I mean, the, the, the moment in time, I mean, that's, that's, that's one of the things that, you know, I always talk about when we're talking about trials. I, I, you, you, you plan every single thing that you can think of for trial, but at the end of the day, trial is this living, breathing, evolving thing, right? You cannot predict exactly what's gonna happen. You can do your best to put in guardrails and plans, But ultimately, little things that impact the result of the case oftentimes are stuff that's not planned. And this, in this particular case, I thought, I think that was kind of a turning point in the case because it was, it was, I think, our second day of testimony. And, and we needed something to really bring them into the home to really understand the, the nature of the devastation. And, and Linda provided that for us.

[00:44:56.26] - Host
Yeah, that's so powerful, especially for a jury of so many women. What was the defense's argument at trial? Do you feel— did you feel like they had anything that you were a little worried would stick with the jury?

[00:45:07.29] - Rob Kohen
I think the—anytime you have gaps in treatment where a person is kind of indicating it's not that bad, so I don't need to get any treatment, it's always a concern when you have a minor, you know, because again, Jeremy was in an 18-wheeler. Right? So he's the big imposing vehicle on the roadway, and he got hit by a pickup truck. Now, the pickup truck had some welding equipment in the back, and so it wasn't just your standard pickup truck like a passenger vehicle. But, you know, the size and the weight difference between the two vehicles is significant. And we were concerned that, you know, jurors would just— ah, I just don't see it. I just don't see how like, how did this guy end up with neuropathic pain, with a walker, with, you know, trouble with his feet, proprioception? How did that all come from a crash at 25 miles per hour when Jeremy's in an 18-wheeler? It just doesn't compute.

[00:46:08.29] - Rob Kohen
There wasn't much the defense could say here that really their, their defense, for lack of a better term, at the end of the day was they tried to It was an all-or-nothing defense where they tried to convince this jury that this collision, um, was not the cause of Jeremy's injury. And essentially their point was, yes, we caused this collision, yes, uh, you know, Jeremy is hurt, but we aren't the reason that he's hurt. Jeremy's hurt for, for some other reason. We can't tell you what it is, but it's not our fault, and it's not related to this crash. So their defense was basically an all or nothing, 100%, this is not our fault, we didn't cause these injuries that the plaintiffs are claiming, uh, here in court today. And that was all they had. They went in all or nothing, and, and I think that that was a grave mistake on their part.

[00:47:03.13] - Brian Salvi
And our concern was that, that, that simple defense would resonate with jurors who were looking for a reason not to give a give Jeremy what he deserved.

[00:47:12.03] - Host
I almost think, and this is like just my personal opinion, that's such a simple explanation and that I'd be worried people would just go with the simple explanation versus listening to these experts who have a scientific diagram. I would worry people would zone out.

[00:47:27.03] - Host
Absolutely.

[00:47:27.16] - Host
Is that ever a concern?

[00:47:28.19] - Brian Salvi
Absolutely. Because you got to remember, we're— our case here with Jeremy specifically is, okay, stay with me, jurors. Stay with me. Okay, so the crash caused a whiplash injury, which causes just a slight tissue disruption in the spinal cord. And then that slight tissue disruption in the spinal cord allows fluid to start filling in there. And then slowly but surely, that, that sac gets bigger, bigger, bigger. It starts pressing on the spinal cord. And then the surgery for the spinal— to drain this sac in the spinal cord requires you to cut into the spinal cord. And once you cut into the spinal cord, you're left with all these problems, right? That's an A to B to B to C to C to D. And then isn't that terrible? And isn't it worth millions and millions of dollars versus the defense, which is that you don't get devastating spinal cord injuries from 25-mile-an-hour rear-end crashes. You just don't. Right.

[00:48:21.06] - Host
And it's digestible.

[00:48:22.17] - Brian Salvi
It's digestible. It's simple. It doesn't require a lot of explanation. And ask any trial lawyer about what they try to do in complex cases. Uh, it's to simplify it.

[00:48:32.01] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:48:32.25] - Brian Salvi
Uh, you try to simplify issues so that it's digestible, it's easy to understand. So the expert, when they're talking about their opinions, it sounds like a teacher talking about something that students wanna learn about versus here's this concept that is so pie in the sky, you guys don't understand it, but just trust me.

[00:48:50.19] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:48:51.09] - Brian Salvi
It, it can't be that way. You, it has to be something like, hey, let me explain it. It makes sense, right? And the fact that we had to go through 4 or 5 steps to get there, and the defense just really had to take 1 or 2 steps, um, I think that's always a consideration when you're going to trial on how simple can we make our case versus how simple is the defense. And so that was certainly something that we were concerned about as being the defense is very simple, straightforward, it's easy to understand.

[00:49:18.02] - Host
So throughout trial, did you adjust the number that you wanted to ask the jury for at all?

[00:49:23.21] - Brian Salvi
No, we were pretty steadfast on that. You know, during negotiations, we had always kind of threatened the fact that we were going to ask for $15 to $20 million.

[00:49:36.22] - Rob Kohen
Mm-hmm.

[00:49:37.14] - Brian Salvi
And during jury selection, I asked specifically, you know, if the law and the evidence supports it, could you sign a verdict approaching $20 million? And so, and then my ultimate ask was, because of a range for certain medical treatments, there was a, there was a range that we provided and it was like $17,000 to $19,000 is what I ultimately asked for. And so we stayed pretty consistent on what we were going to ask for the entire time. And, and, you know, as you can imagine, during jury selection in a, in a farm prison town or county, I was— I don't want to say nervous, but I was looking forward to the reactions that I was going to get. When I say, hey, I'm gonna be asking for $20 million at the end of this week. Anybody have any feelings about that? And I did. You, we got responses, you know, plenty of people raised their hands and says, oh yeah, no, that's, that's ridiculous. You know, that's way too much. I gotta, you know, you're trying to tell me that this is worth $20 million and I haven't even heard anything yet. That's, that's kind of absurd. But I will say the, thing that happened with Linda and the picture, the way Jeremy described his life, his relationships, and how they've changed, how he described hunting and the things that he's lost from his own life, how he loved working and has lost that. We just— we got the momentum and we never let it go. And so by the time I asked for '17 to '19, I felt like it was a very reasonable ask. I really did. I had no second thoughts by that time that this was the appropriate amount to ask for in this case because it was justified based on the harm.

[00:51:22.11] - Host
Could you tell based on juror reactions to any of those moments that you had them, or did you just feel good about your case?

[00:51:29.22] - Brian Salvi
So because I wasn't in the courtroom for the moment with Linda, I was relying on Emily and Caesar and, and I, I have implicit trust in them based on what they witnessed in the courtroom. That's no doubt about that. And then I knew, because I did Jeremy's direct too, and I knew after Jeremy's direct that it went in well. I knew that he had done a good job. I knew he had represented himself well. I knew that he had articulated things in the right way, and I thought he had done a really nice job on cross-examination defending himself against certain things. So again, it was kind of a momentum thing. It was kind of a momentum thing where I just felt like the only person to be limiting, you know, what we could potentially achieve would be our, our own kind of self-doubts and putting ceilings on ourself in terms of like whether or not it feels right to ask for this much in this venue. And instead of doing that, and trust me, that was absolutely a variable we kept in our mind constantly throughout the entire consideration and trial consideration of negotiation for settlement and then at trial. But the main thing we always fell back on is, is like, we trust our own valuation of the case. And if they're not going to pay us that in settlement, well, then we'll ask the jury. And we just, we just had a hard time. We had a hard time concluding that the jury was going to give us less than what the defense was offering us in settlement.

[00:52:52.21] - Host
And that says a lot about how strong you felt, given that there were no plaintiff's verdicts to go off of.

[00:52:57.10] - Host
Yeah.

[00:52:58.02] - Host
I, I imagine that would get in your head a little bit.

[00:53:00.16] - Rob Kohen
A little bit.

[00:53:01.06] - Brian Salvi
I mean, it's, it's impossible to ignore the fact that there were no verdicts in, and it was absolutely part of the, it was absolutely part of the negotiation tactics from the defense. And that was basically communicated to us by our second mediator. Um, our second mediator, Judge Spears, shout out Judge Spears. Uh, but he kind of, he, he did a great job kind of pumping us up in the lead up to trial because we had a second mediation. 3 weeks before trial started because the defense was, had kind of indicated, hey, listen, we think we can get to where you need to be. And so we said, okay, fine, we'll do another mediation. And during that mediation, uh, you know, Judge Spears kind of reiterated a lot of those things that we already knew. Oh, they're, they're banking on venue, they're banking on the 10-day delay in treatment. You know, they, they just don't think a jury in this county is gonna give you a big number. And in part it's because no one else has ever gotten a number in the county, right? There's, there are literally no verdicts, so. You don't have anything to base your position that you can achieve, you know, a lot more. You have nothing to base that off of. And Judge Spears, what he said to us is he kind of reminded us of the history of the 4-minute mile and kind of reminded us that, you know, about, what, 80, 75 years ago, no one had ever run a 4-minute mile. And that whenever it was that the first guy ran a 4-minute mile, a mile under 4 minutes, within, you know, a year or two of that, 4 or 5 more people were able to do it. And, and, and Judge Spears, the messaging of that story is, listen, everyone's saying you can't get a verdict here because there are no verdicts. So go get a verdict and then you will be the benchmark. You will set the standard of what this county is capable of. And, and so when the defense was like, you know, just not moving and not doing anything to negotiate in good faith, when Judge Spears kind of gave us that analogy. It was a nice little punch in the arm.

[00:54:54.28] - Host
Yeah.

[00:54:55.07] - Brian Salvi
That I really appreciated as, and I know Jeremy appreciated it too, which is to say, listen, you guys are, you know, he said it too. Judge Spears is like, he, he, he can't disagree with how we're viewing it. You know, we valued the case as this, and Judge Spears basically was like, I can't disagree with you. It's just the other side doesn't want to pay you that because they don't think that you can accomplish that. So maybe what you need to do is just go accomplish it. And, and that was kind of the, the last little kick that we needed. And so I have a big appreciation for Judge Spears and how he handled that.

[00:55:28.24] - Host
Yeah, I love that the judge kind of gave you the pep talk to go. And it also shows he probably believed in the case as well, right?

[00:55:35.04] - Brian Salvi
He believed in the case. This is Judge Spears is somebody that the reason he was utilized for this mediation is because he has a lot of experience with these downstate cases. And so I think, I think the defense was like, oh good, Judge Spears will, will give, you know, the plaintiffs a check in reality. Yeah. You know, hey, here's your dosage of reality that you need because you're living in the sky. And Judge Spears, I think, did a little bit of the opposite. He did a little bit of the emboldening us to say, hey, listen, maybe you're right. Just go get a number and then you can deal with the insurance company. And so I have a lot of appreciation for Judge Spears on how he handled that.

[00:56:09.00] - Host
So it sounds like you guys were kind of on a high towards the end of trial, like feeling really strongly. What was it like waiting for the verdict? Did you kind of maintain that, or do you always—

[00:56:17.07] - Brian Salvi
Yeah, a little. It's a really good question because, yes, because the momentum was taking us all the way through. I felt so good when I— I remember sitting down, like, I got— I finished my closing argument, and I, you know, I said, you know, I'll have the opportunity to talk to you one more time after defense counsel goes. And I remember sitting down, and I remember thinking to myself, I got him. Because, you know, when you're doing closing argument, you're looking around, you're trying to make connections, you're locking in, you're, you're using demonstratives. And when you use the demonstratives, you look back at the jury and you're seeing who's really engaged, right? Who's with you? And so I knew we had them in terms of like, they're on our side, they're with our arguments. It's just going to be a matter of, do the numbers make the— like, do they view the money and the numbers the same way we do? Are they going to follow the law on taking every single line item separately and with its own consideration and not just kind of throwing in a number that makes sense and backfilling the jury, uh, the verdict form? Those were the things towards the end that I was concerned about. I was very confident that the number they were going to give us was going to be greater than the settlement offer.

[00:57:21.03] - Host
And what was the settlement offer?

[00:57:22.17] - Brian Salvi
The last settlement offer was $3 million.

[00:57:25.02] - Host
Okay. So as long as you— Correct.

[00:57:26.18] - Brian Salvi
As long as I was about— I knew we were going to break that. I just was— I just had such a hard time concluding that the jury was going to give them less. Because the thought process in the conversation we had, the only reason a jury would give less with these facts based on how the testimony went in, because the testimony went in very well, based on how the testimony went in, the only way you would give less is if you really hated Jeremy, like you just thought Jeremy, you just didn't like him and you just didn't connect with him and you thought he was just kind of hustling the system. And so, yeah, he's injured, but I'm not going to give you big dollars because of that. And so if that was the only reason that was gonna hold it down, mm-hmm. And all the evidence that I witnessed was that they loved Jeremy and that Linda brought it home and Jeremy did a great job representing himself. I just couldn't conclude that they were going to stiff him. They weren't gonna just, the jury was not going to be cheap with Jeremy because he was just too likable. His story was too compelling and his damages, his injury was too significant. It just was, he, this was a significant injury. I just, I, it was, it was just impossible for me to wrap my head around a sub-$3 million verdict. And that is really what guided the decision-making is I, every time Jeremy would say like, well, are we gonna get less? I'd be like, ah man, it's hard for me to picture you getting less, Jeremy. I feel like we did a great job. I just don't see how it's gonna be less than that. Thankfully we were right about that.

[00:58:54.23] - Host
Yeah. So what was the final verdict?

[00:58:56.22] - Brian Salvi
It was a $12.2 million verdict. I heard the 12 and kind of stopped listening after that. I had kind of mentally prepared myself for like 5 or 6. I had kind of told myself like 7 would be amazing.

[00:59:10.07] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[00:59:11.04] - Brian Salvi
And so when I heard 12, I just kind of blacked out for 5 seconds or so. I immediately turned, 'cause so, you know, jury comes out, the bailiff takes the verdict form up to the judge. Judge starts reading it and judge says verdict form A. And so obviously that tells us right away they didn't buy the defense argument on causation. Right. So they, they connected the car crash to the ultimate injury. So that was obviously very relieving to hear verdict form A. So then I kind of grabbed Jeremy's arm and then I heard the 12 and I just kind of turned and embraced him. And so we just embraced while the judge read the rest of the verdict form and, you know, tears were flowing out of our eyes. And it was a very— it was a, it was a, it was a great moment because you got to remember, like, Jeremy at that point, he's just trusting us. He's just like, I trust you that we can do better than this. And he was, he was all in for it. It was great to have his attitude there. But at the end of the day, he's trusting our professional opinion that we can do better than that. And so the concept that we did worse than what was being offered is a really scary thing. And so the relief of it being much more, and then the extent to which it was greater than the settlement offers, knowing that it's now gonna be an amount of money that is going to take care of all his needs, is going to compensate him for what he's lost from a work perspective, and then is, is an appropriate amount of money in my view for what has been taken from his life in terms of relationships and ability to live his life. It's a great feeling when the jury sees things, you know, similarly to the way— I mean, they didn't give me the 17 to 19 that I asked, and that's not what I was expecting, but there's not a doubt that they saw things closer to the way we saw things than the way the defense did. And so that was obviously very gratifying.

[01:00:56.27] - Host
Have there been any other plaintiffs' verdicts since this one?

[01:01:00.13] - Brian Salvi
You know, it's only been 15 months, but I have not seen one yet. I certainly will. Call up a lawyer and congratulate them when they get it. Uh, uh, and I haven't gotten a phone call from anyone yet saying, hey, I'm going to trial in Fayette County, uh, next week. Can you tell me what your experience was like? I haven't gotten that call yet, but I'll be paying attention to it, no doubt.

[01:01:21.07] - Host
And what would your message be to attorneys who may be apprehensive to take a case to trial in a smaller county?

[01:01:26.23] - Rob Kohen
Don't be. Go for it. If, if you have, uh, uh, uh, the right case, if you've got a case where you've got a good plaintiff, a good human being, an innocent victim who, who it is clear that they didn't want this to happen to them, they didn't ask for this. I think if you present that trial appropriately, I think it is very likely that there will be much more of these verdicts in the future. And I hope and I encourage other attorneys not to shy away from the fact that this is the first, right? There's going to be somebody else that's going to at some point, I don't know when it'll be, but at some point this verdict is gonna get broken. Someone's gonna get a bigger verdict. And that's great. I think that that's fantastic. And I think that, um, this hopefully will give confidence to other attorneys that it, it, it doesn't matter. You know, do your best job, present your best case. Um, and, and the outcome will speak for itself.

[01:02:16.25] - Host
Can you explain maybe to listeners like why that amount of money is so important for Jeremy?

[01:02:21.04] - Brian Salvi
The main thing is security.

[01:02:22.28] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[01:02:23.11] - Host
Right.

[01:02:23.22] - Brian Salvi
Is whenever something comes up, he can handle it. Whereas when you're living paycheck to paycheck and then all of a sudden you don't have a job anymore, everything is incredibly distressing. How am I going to make my next doctor's appointment? If I make my next doctor's appointment, how am I going to pay for it? If I need more intensive or more expensive treatment, what's that going to look like? How am I going to pay for it? How long am I going to need to do it? I have this condition that all the doctors are telling me is going to last me for the rest of my life. So I got to condition that's going to be with me for the next 30— I think it was 38 or 39 years for Jeremy. How am I going to deal with all this?

[01:02:56.24] - Emily Art
I, I know that he bought, I think, a new house, um, something that obviously a little more accessible for him, not having to go walk around too much to be able to get to, you know, different parts of his house. And, you know, just, just the relief that not only, not only does he still have to deal with the pain, but there's relief that he has the means to make his life easier for him.

[01:03:21.20] - Brian Salvi
And so when you have the financial security to deal with all that, a couple of things you can do. You can make accommodations to your home, which he did. You can make sure you've got accommodations to like your vehicles, which he did. You can make sure that the family members around you are taken care of. So, for example, his wife doesn't need to go travel 45 minutes to an hour for work to work 50 hours a week. Now she can spend more time with the family. She can live the life that she had prior to Jeremy's injury, right? And so it's all about getting back to that place. And then the money, obviously, in part going forward, is the fact that Jeremy's going to wake up in 10 years, he's going to wake up in 20 years, he's going to wake up in 30 years. And each time he wakes up those mornings, in those intervals, 10, 20, 30 years from now, he's going to be in terrible pain, and he's going to need a walker to get around, and he's going to be limited in his overall mobility. He's not going to be able to travel, he's not going to be to hunt. He's not going to be able to participate in his activities of daily living. He's not going to be able to participate in his relationships the way he, he used to. He's not going to be, for example, able to do— walk his daughter down the aisle without a cane or assistive device. He's not going to be able to do the first dance for more than 30 seconds to a minute, something like that, you know. So all those things are disheartening and depressing to think about, that, that it's been taken away from you by someone's carelessness.

[01:04:41.24] - Host
And there's no price on those types of memories.

[01:04:44.04] - Brian Salvi
That's right. And so, you know, $12 million is a lot of money, but there is not a doubt in my mind that if you put a piece of paper that said, here's $12 million as a result for Jeremy versus you get your life back where you were restrictionless and you can drive a truck and you can do all the things you want to do with your family. Here are the two lives you can lead. You know, which one do you want? 100 out of 100 times, Jeremy is signing the one where he has his function back and he doesn't have the money. And that's part of my closing argument, right? And I think that, I think that resonates because everybody's sitting there. The point is, the point is, is that part of what you're trying to communicate is that even if you were given $12 million, you still wouldn't trade places with them. And I think when you put it in that, when you frame it in that way, It's, it's very understandable why jurors do what they do.

[01:05:40.11] - Host
Mm-hmm.

[01:05:41.09] - Brian Salvi
You know, they, they compensate people for terrible, terrible damages based on the law, and that's what they did in this case.

[01:05:48.07] - Host
Is there anything else that you wanna share either about Jeremy, the case, that you think viewers should know?

[01:05:53.10] - Brian Salvi
I would just say trust yourself as a lawyer and your colleagues. And your client. Because this one was one where— and I've said it a couple times now— where each time we were considering whether or not to resolve the case, each time we were like, what are we going to do next? Are we really going to go all the way to verdict on this case? The thing we kept coming back and falling back on is this is, this is how we view these injuries. It's devastating. Devastating. These devastating injuries need this amount of compensation. Anything less than this amount of compensation for these injuries would just be short value. And then ask yourself whether or not you want to be the lawyer who settles a case for short value. And if you don't want to be the lawyer who settles cases for short value, then it requires you to go to verdict. And then what happens is you go to verdict and then you start getting settlement offers after you prove that you can go to verdict and get results. Settlement offers thereafter start to reflect closer to what you think value is.

[01:06:57.26] - Host
And you're talking about in subsequent cases?

[01:06:59.12] - Brian Salvi
Correct. Both because you can say you've got the track record for it, but also then the carriers can look it up and understand that, A, you're willing to go all the way to verdict, and that when you do go all the way to verdict, you can substantially, you know, outkick what the insurance company thought was possible. And I think It's really powerful and it ultimately sets up you, your firm, and your future clients for better results down the road.

[01:07:24.05] - Host
Yeah. So the ripple effect doesn't just affect Jeremy and his family.

[01:07:27.06] - Brian Salvi
Exactly right. Exactly right. And that's one of the, that's one of the best things about going to verdict is that it, it, it is a statement on not just the case, but on your willingness as a lawyer, on the firm, on the venue, on the jury, you know, how these injuries are viewed by jurors. What do these people think about these cases. And so you provide information, right? And in this case, there wasn't information. We had to go create the information, the data. And, and I'm really, really proud of how our team and Jeremy especially was able to do it.

[01:07:56.19] - Host
Well, thank you so much for being here. So nice to hear about Jeremy just as a person. But also, I think it's a good hype up for other attorneys.

[01:08:03.03] - Brian Salvi
Yeah, no, and I appreciate the time to talk about it.

[01:08:04.28] - Host
Where can people find you if they have a case to refer to you or a case for you to look at?

[01:08:09.14] - Brian Salvi
Yeah, you can find me at salvilaw.com. Also LinkedIn, Brian Salvi. You know, by all means, reach out to me as well via email, bsalvi@salvilaw.com. Happy to talk through any of these things as it relates to cases from a legal or lawyer perspective. And then obviously for any individuals who unfortunately find themselves in similar circumstances.

[01:08:29.27] - Rob Kohen
Easiest way to get ahold of me is just shoot me an email. My email is rkoen@salvilaw.com. You can also reach us, uh, by phone at the office at 312-372-1227.

[01:08:46.03] - Emily Art
My bio can be found on Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard website, and my email is eart@salvilaw.com if anyone needs to contact me.

[01:08:54.23] - Host
Thank you so much for listening to Beating Goliath: A Plaintiff's Pursuit of Justice. A special thank you to Jeremy Dutton for allowing us to share his story. Beating Goliath This episode was written and produced in-house here at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard and edited by the talented team at Salvi Media. To learn more about this case or to listen to more episodes of our podcast, head over to salvilaw.com/podcast. Until next time.