By: MICHAEL PETERSON, KEENAN LAW FIRM
This month’s Reptile© Superstar is Charles Armbruster. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, and his J.D. from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Charles has been practicing law for over 20 years. Charles is a partner at Armbruster, Dripps, Winterscheidt & Blotevogel, LLC, where his firm focuses on FELA Railroad and product liability cases.
Outside of the law, Charles is a proud father of twin girls. Whether it is planning vacations or assisting with homework, Charles is passionate about spending quality time with his family.
Introduction to Reptile©:
Charles purchased the Reptile© book hot off the presses in 2009. According to Charles, the Reptile© just made sense. The first time Charles used the Reptile© was in a MVC case. The case involved a pizza delivery driver who collided with another vehicle. Charles represented the child in the case, who happened to be a backseat passenger in the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Charles used his Voir Dire to spread the tentacles of danger, and wrapped up his closing by arguing that a jury is the conscience of the community. His client received a verdict of $2.1 million, and Charles received confirmation that the Reptile© is real. His favorite Reptile© tool is conscience of the community. According to Charles, conscience of the community presents every lawyer with an opportunity to arm the jury with the means to protect their community.
Facts of the Case:
Charles’ client, worked as a transport driver who hauled cars on trucking rigs. Charles’ client, while transporting a load, decided to spend the night at a hotel. When he woke up in the morning, he found that some of the chains that were securing the cars to the rig came loose. As he went to tighten the chains, the metal component that routes the chains throughout the truck broke, causing the tension in the chains to release. The slack in the chains caused Charles’ client to fall to the ground. The plaintiff would later learn that this fall caused him to suffer a herniated a disk in his lower back. Charles’ client did not feel like he needed medical attention after the fall, and so he continued to transport his load.
Later the same day, the chain broke again. This time Charles’ client caught himself to prevent a fall. Charles reported both incidents to his employer after he had completed the transport. The plaintiff managed to work for another week until the pain became unbearable. Charles’ client went to the hospital, and his doctor conducted an MRI that revealed a herniation in his disk. He then received an epidural and began physical therapy. The following year, his client underwent a micro discectomy to remove the disk. After rehab from surgery, Charles’ client begged his treating physician to permit him to return to work. His treating physician granted his request. However, when Charles’ client returned to work, he often had trouble completing his assignments and experienced pain while performing job related task.
Sometime prior to trial, but after the first fall, Charles’ client slipped and fell on a patch of ice. The fall left him unconscious. He went to the hospital and his physician diagnosed him with a herniated cervical disk. The plaintiff underwent surgery and went through rehab. At that point, his treating physician informed him that he could never go back to work as a car hauler. Charles’ client took a job at the Salvation Army. Charles’ client sued for his injuries relating to the first fall. The client’s medical bills amounted to $60,000. Charles’ client was 50 years old at the time of the injury.
Medical records show that the plaintiff had a long history of low back pain. The defense argued that Charles’ client did not suffer a herniated disk from his fall on the job, but rather from his fall on the ice. Furthermore, the defense insinuated that the plaintiff was lying about his medical history. Lastly, they argued that if he did fall on the job, then his fall was a result of his choice to wear shoes that were against company policy. There was no offer in this case
Pre -Trial Reptile©:
With great help from his partners, Michael Blotevogel and Brian Wendler, Charles began working to apply the Reptile© concepts to this case.
Charles placed much of his pretrial focus on his client’s witness prep, which he conducted by following the Keenan Method of Witness Preparation. With all of the negative attribution associated with his client’s pre-existing injuries, Charles knew that it was necessary to ensure that his client was confident about his medical history before he went trial. Charles spent two days with his client preparing him for his deposition and direct. He then took additional two days, to assist his client with his Major Truths.
His client’s Major Truths were as follows:
- He was not the cause of his injuries.
- He did all that he could to rehab and recover.
- He has been truthful with all of the medical information he has given.
Reptiling© the case:
Voir Dire:
Charles used his Voir Dire to distinguish himself from the defense and to earn the jury’s trust. Charles began his Voir Dire with passion questions. He then took it a step further by asking the jury, “If you didn’t have to be here, or at work today, what would you be doing right now?” These two questions alone caused an eruption of conversation throughout the panel.
Charles has seen plenty of attorneys bore the jury to sleep during Voir Dire, because they focused too much on the individual, rather than trying to generate cross talk amongst the entire panel. Charles told the jury that he appreciated their time and understood the sacrifice they were making by sitting on the jury. He promised them that he would not waste their time with frivolous facts and needless interruptions. The defense attempted to copy his demeanor but his performance fell flat.
Opening:
Charles implemented the traditional Reptile© opening. He provided his rules, presented the story of case, and outlined his order of proof. Charles finds that the Reptile© opening template places him at ease. Before the Reptile©, he used to feel like he needed to steal the Black Hats thunder. Now, he embraces the negative attribution in his case, because Reptile© has prepared him to handle it.
Charles developed two rules for this case:
- A product manufacturer is required to make their products safe product to prevent serious injury to the community.
- A repair shop is required to properly repair equipment to prevent serious injury to the community.
Charles’ client was the first witness to take the stand. His client was the only one who witnessed the injury, and so Charles expected the jury to heavily scrutinize the credibility of his client’s testimony. For this reason, Charles placed heavy emphasis on his client’s Major Truths in an effort to diffuse the inherent bias in his testimony. Charles had his client testify to each of his Major Truths. During his direct, his client informed the jury of his pre-existing injuries, and explained that he had no limitation in movement or pain prior to this incident. His client verified the story of the case, and corroborated the injuries he suffered from the fall with the hospital’s medical records. Charles found out at the end of trial that the jury found his client’s testimony to be genuine and sincere.
The defense used his cross-examination to prove that his client was a liar. They claimed that his injuries stemmed from his fall on the ice. Charles’ client did not lose his temper when he was confronted by these accusations; instead, he relied on his Major Truths, and simply referred to his medical records, which documented his hospital visits, surgery, and rehab stemming from his fall on the job.
Moreover, the defense claimed the plaintiff’s injuries were not as debilitating as the plaintiff would make it seem. Charles’ client stuck with his Major Truths. He informed the jury that he was a hard worker, who wanted badly to continue his career as a truck hauler. He explained that the defendant’s failure to redesign their chains prevented him from pursuing his career choice. Charles noticed the jury nodding with his client’s statement.
Furthermore, the defense claimed that if he did fall on the job, then he fell because he did not wear the shoes mandated by his company. Again, Charles’ client stuck with his Major Truth that he was not the cause of the fall. Charles’ client testified that his employer was mistaken about the shoes that he wore that day. Charles’ client actually entered the shoes he wore that day into evidence, as proof that he met the qualifications of the company. Moreover, he argued that the company never produced a report or reprimanded him for wearing the wrong shoes. During the plaintiff’s cross-examination, the defense requested 10 sidebars, each of which lasted longer than 5 minutes. Charles’ client was calm and confident, during his 4-hour cross-examination. Charles did not mind the length of his client’s cross-examination, because most of the defenses’ arguments were lost in process.
Charles wanted to use the defenses’ IME and liability expert to polarize the case. Charles asked the IME, whether he believed his client’s pain stemmed from a fall. The IME doctor agreed. Charles asked the defenses’ liability expert whether she agreed with the safety rules. She agreed. Furthermore, the defense’s liability expert acknowledged that safety was a primary consideration for their company. She claimed that their company has the responsibility to stay abreast of changes in the industry and safety. However, she testified that this was not a concern in this case. Her testimony allowed Charles to enter the injury records of other employees of the defendant, who were injured when the same piece broke on their trucks. Study after study revealed that the company knew they needed to change their design and had the ability to do so, yet refused to make the change.
Closing:
Charles was very cognizant about remaining off-code. In contrast, the defense was very dismissive of the jury and repeatedly interrupted, which lengthened the trial. By closing arguments, Charles could see that the jury had become visibly angry with them both. Charles remembered that he had promised them that he would not waste their time. He felt bad that the trial had lasted this long, and so he chose to start his closing with an apology. He reminded them of the promise he made during jury selection, and how he would not waste their time with sidebars and needless things. He admitted that he did not come through on his promise, and asked for their forgiveness. After he apologized, he began to feel the tension evaporate in the room.
In contrast, the defense did not apologize. Charles took this opportunity to show how the defense was not willing to accept responsibility for anything. Whether it was their failure to apologize, or their obfuscation of the facts, or their repeated sidebar request, the jury found the defense to be completely on code. This made polarizing of the case that much easier.
Charles stated, “Up until now, all the defense has done is obscure the facts and waste your time. They have yet to show that they are not the cause my client’s injuries and they have yet to prove that my client did not sustain the injuries he claims. Even the defenses’ IME agrees that his injuries stem from a fall, and my client’s medical records prove that he fell on the job and suffered a herniated disk.”
Furthermore, Charles informed the jury that they are the Conscience of the Community. He told them that they have the power to ensure that a company designs safe products in the future. He acknowledged the jury’s expectations for product safety with their cars, playgrounds, even home appliances, and he informed him that this was nothing different. Charles argued that the jury does not want products they can tolerate, but products that are safe. If a company declares that they have a right to endanger their consumers to save money, then the jury has the right to demand that every product be safe to in order to save lives.
He told the jury that they have a choice to believe their client and compensate him for his injuries, or to give the defendant a pass. Charles explained, “At the very end of this trial when you go home, your friends and family will ask you what it was like to serve on a jury, and you are going to have to give them an honest answer. Did you make this community safer with your verdict today? Are we all better off? These are the questions that you will be tasked with answering today.”
Verdict:
The jury returned a verdict of $2,091,000. The jury delivered their verdict around 7 p.m. The defense was shocked. Before he left the courtroom, he talked with the jury and asked them whether they believe they made the community safer through their verdict. Some of the jurors agreed; however, they felt sorry that they could not convince the other jurors to eliminate the 45 percent comparative fault on his client. The verdict was humbling, and the plaintiff was elated. He felt vindicated because the jury did not believe that he was a liar.
Conclusion:
This case taught Charles the importance of remaining off code and polarizing the case. The stark difference in the way he tried this case in comparison to the defense, allowed him to gain the jury’s trust throughout the entire trial. He felt as though the conscience of the community argument truly resonated with the jury. When it comes to damages, Charles would encourage us to be straight up with the jury. Do not beat around the bush or play games. Simply tell them what you want and if you have earned their trust then they will respect you for your honesty.
St. Louis County is a dangerously conservative place to try a case like this, so a win like this speaks volumes about the power of the Reptile©. By polarizing the case, and remaining off-code, Charles was able to overcome adversity and obstacles to achieve a truly remarkable verdict.