Blog 9

            After a hiatus of a few weeks, I hit the road again, bookending my week by heading south to Casa Grande for a 10-hour marathon of depositions on Monday and then trying to crack holes in the seemingly Teflon-coated testimony of a plaintiff back in Phoenix on Friday. Observing the depositions inadvertently highlighted many of the concepts I had been studying for my mock AP Psychology that week: the practice of law is much more than knowing the law.

Monday

            Our first destination of the week was Casa Grande, a large town about an hour south of Phoenix. After shaking hands with the co-defendant and the plaintiffs' attorneys, we settled down in the conference room for a long day of deposing the five plaintiffs. My father represented Pinal County in the case, and the codefendant represented the City of Casa Grande.

            The case featured two fronts: the liability issue and the damages issue. The liability issue focused on who was responsible for the single-vehicle motor vehicle accident on a dirt road that resulted in the vehicle, holding all five plaintiffs, allegedly hitting a pothole and rolling.

            Of course, the two defendants denied any liability for the accident, but there was some evidence that there was a pothole in the road. Surprisingly, two days before the plaintiffs' accident, another single-vehicle roll-over accident occurred along the same dirt road. The City denied any notice--actual or constructive--of the pothole, claiming that Pinal County did not advise the City of the prior accident. Notice can be actual--a person receives a written paper or a telephone call informing them of a matter--or constructive--a reasonable person should have known of the matter of interest to them. Have you ever seen those little signs posted on empty lots announcing public notice of impending construction of homes? That is constructive notice. Another common example of constructive notice is those often-ignored pages of public notices published in eye-crampingly tiny print in the daily newspaper. Considered a legal fiction, constructive notice will be deemed sufficient in certain circumstances, even in the absence of actual notice.

            The damages issues pivoted on the plaintiffs' testimony and medical records.

            The driver of the vehicle--the mother--suffered the most claimed serious injuries, with claims of ongoing pain in the neck, lower back, and left arm, along with serious headaches and an intense paranoia of driving, which she believes is her most significant injury. Her deposition was by far the longest and toughest--she cried continuously for almost three hours. Once the codefendant finished his questioning, my father attempted to project a more sincere concern in his voice to get more clarification on her anxiety issues. The concern in his voice appeared to comfort the mother, who then provided more details on her paranoia.

            The father--the front-seat passenger in the accident--initially claimed he also received serious injuries, but his statements appeared more suspect than his wife's testimony regarding injuries. Additionally, he forgot to state that he had received chiropractic treatment, only to "remember" spontaneously after a short break with his attorney. Overall, he appeared overdramatic and seemed overreaching regarding his claims to be very believable.

            Finally, the three children--all riding in the backseat--were deposed. Both the 19-year-old and 16-year-old daughter indirectly impeached the parents' claims that the family was falling apart, but the 10-year-old somewhat spoiled the what was established through the statements of the two older siblings by stating that the marital relationship of her parents did seem strained and her mother not only suffered from anxiety when driving, but also experienced intense headaches.

Friday

            I returned to home base at the office for a deposition related to a car accident at a highway intersection. The plaintiff took a left turn off the highway ramp onto the street when my father's client ran into the side of her car. Both claimed to have had a green light. The plaintiff hit her knee on the steering wheel during the collision, causing her uncomfortable knee pain that she claims lingers to the present day. The plaintiff visited an urgent care on the day of the accident due to her knee pain and soon after received an x-ray from a primary care physician. However, she did not receive any physical therapy for the next 80 days and the plaintiff failed to produce a strong argument to explain this gap.

            The defendant's client was not present, but had claimed earlier that both he and his wife, who is now divorcing him, that he had a green light when the accident occurred.

            The accident occurred over two years ago, but the 30-year-old plaintiff still complains of ongoing knee pain. An orthopedic surgeon examined her knee and stated that it was a bone bruise that would heel in 18 months, but it supposedly remains unhealed and in pain. When asked what she plans to do next, the plaintiff responded that she plans to live with the dull pain inside her knee because she works a desk job, minimizing the discomfort.  

            With the deposition complete, my father moved into an informal settlement conference with the plaintiff's attorney. Surprisingly, the plaintiff's attorney tipped his hand, hinting that he would settle for half my father's client's policy; his primary reason being the liability issue--he felt her damages were strongly supported. My father kept his poker face, nonchalantly explaining that he would have to see if the adjustor would agree. On the other hand, the plaintiff herself  seemed wary of accepting the settlement proposed by her attorney; however, she tentatively agreed.