By: MICHAEL PETERSON, KEENAN LAW FIRM
This month’s Reptile© Superstar is Brent Sumner. Brent Sumner received his Bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from the University of Missouri, and his Juris Doctorate from St. Louis University School of Law. After law school, Brent worked with a small law firm in the hope of practicing plaintiff’s litigation. After six weeks of working there, a Black Hat firm acquired his firm and Brent switched his focus to patent litigation. At the end of his second year in practice, Brent decided to start his own law firm. He then went on to create The Sumner Law Group LLC, where he focuses on MVC and premises liability cases.
Introduction to Reptile©:
Brent was introduced to the Reptile© around 2010. According to him, the Reptile© immediately made sense. Brent was recently a student at the Rules and Case Selection course (#1) at the Keenan Ball College in Chicago where he was taught by instructor Alvin Wolff, as well as by Danny Ellis and Bob Montgomery; and, according to him, “the course was amazing.” Brent wrote his entire opening for the case featured here before coming to the KBC. He then presented his opening at the KBC in front of his instructors and peers, who analyzed and refined his opening and safety rules. Furthermore, they aided him in developing his Reptile© theme and bumper sticker.
Brent’s favorite Reptile© tool is Spreading the Tentacles of Danger.
Brent usually weaves in the Tentacles of Danger with the conscience of the community and with his safety rules. According to Brent, “I use the conscience of the community to empower the jury, the safety rules to embolden the jury, and the Tentacles of Danger to reveal the potential danger that a rule violation may have on their community.” Brent is impressed by how much the Reptile© has completely changed the way his firm prepares for trial.
Facts of the Case:
The defendant was an EMT in Paramedic school. He had just completed his last semester at school and decided to celebrate the moment with his friends at a local bar. The defendant arrived around 10 p.m. and ordered a couple buckets of beer with friends. However, the defendant testifies that he only had two drinks that night. He stayed at the bar for about 2 hours before he got behind the wheel of his Nissan Maxima. The defendant drove south on Jamison Rd., while Brent’s client was heading north on Jamison riding a motorcycle. The defendant chose to make a left turn without yielding in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing his Nissan Maxima to hit the front end of the plaintiff’s motorcycle.
Brent’s client flew over the handle bars of the motorcycle onto the windshield of the defendant’s vehicle, and then onto pavement. The plaintiff suffered a fractured right leg and kneecap. Furthermore, he broke both of the bones in his right arm and tore the muscle in his right shoulder, as well as fracturing his pelvis and penis. The police took everyone’s statement; however, they failed to perform a sobriety test on the defendant. Brent chalked this up to the “Good Old Boy” network between the police and the defendant, who was a local EMT.
The ambulance rushed Brent’s client from the scene of the wreck to the hospital. Once at the hospital his client became extremely combative with the nurses and doctors. His violent behavior forced his nurses to heavily sedate him. Due to his violent behavior, the hospital drew up a toxicology report, which revealed that Brent’s client had drugs in his system at the time of the wreck. The hospital also determined that the client’s injuries were all non-surgical. The plaintiff spent six days in the hospital and left the hospital against medical advice.
The plaintiff had an extensive criminal history and a pending criminal case. He was also noncompliant when it came to his medical treatment. Based upon these issues, the Defense chose to attack the credibility of the plaintiff and show how he was on-Code for “biker” and “criminal”. Given these complications, it was no surprise that the Defense’s first offer was only $250,000.—Brent’s client denied their offer.
Pre-Trial Reptile©:
According to Brent, the KBC reinforced how important it is to focus group cases before trial. Brent had never run a focus group before this trial. The support he received from his peers at the College encouraged him to organize focus groups. For this case, Brent teamed up with Alex Wolff and Ben Sansone to help him run some of them. Ben and his colleagues organized four focus groups, and attempted to use their first to deliver a strong defense opening—an opening filled with all the case’s negative attribution.
Brent had his subjects consider everything from his client’s drug use on the day of the wreck, to driving with a revoked license, to leaving the hospital against medical advice—as well as his client’s criminal past. Brent wanted to determine whether these facts were simply hurdles, or unmovable mountains that he needed to fight to keep out. The focus group analyzed each fact and concluded that his client should not have been on the road that day. The amount of negative attribution he received was overwhelming. Brent drew up MILs to preclude each of the negative facts in this case. The focus group made it clear that if he presented those facts at trial, he would lose the case.
Brent used his first MIL to argue that his client’s revoked license was irrelevant to the facts of the wreck since there was no issue of comparative fault. The judge agreed with Brent, despite the fact that his client’s driver’s license had been revoked for 10 years due to his history of (multiple) DWIs. Brent’s second MIL addressed the drugs found in his client’s system on the day of the wreck. The judge precluded that evidence because the Defense failed to hire a toxicologist to testify regarding the drugs. Brent also filed an MIL to preclude the Defense from introducing evidence that his client left the hospital against medical advice. The judge ruled that the Defense could not introduce that evidence without medical testimony to show a connection between plaintiff’s injuries and leaving the hospital against medical advice. After losing all of their MILs, the Defense increased their offer to $500,000 before trial.
The one thing that Brent could not preclude by filing a MIL was his client’s criminal history. However, every time Brent placed this issue in front of the focus groups, they repeatedly stated that his client’s criminal past was not relevant to his injuries. This was the biggest blessing from the focus groups. Many lawyers told Brent to accept the defendant’s offer and, given his client’s history, Brent was close to listening to them; however, the focus groups gave Brent the confidence to reject the Defense’s offer and proceed to trial.
Voir Dire:
Brent always values an opportunity to earn the jury’s trust. Brent sought to use voir dire to address all of the hot-button issues in his case. He told the jury that he wanted them to be brutally honest about how they felt about his client’s criminal convictions. He encouraged them to speak freely. For this reason, Brent did not bring his client into the courtroom because he wanted the jury to feel as comfortable as possible while discussing these sensitive topics and believed that would be best accomplished in the absence of the plaintiff.
He started the discussion by focusing on the venire’s motorcycle bias. Brent then went into his client’s criminal history. He told the jury that the only reason they were there for that trial was because the Defense believed that Brent’s client’s criminal history entitled them to a discount on his injuries. Brent chose to be very honest and upfront with the jury during voir dire. He discussed the safety rules for the community at hand and talked with potential jurors about their abilities to say what they expected of other drivers in their community, and to hold rule breakers responsible for all harms and losses. In the end, Brent was extremely happy with the jury seated to hear the plaintiff’s case.
Opening:
The KBC gave Brent the Reptile© Damages outline for opening, for which he learned the value of using statistics and bumper stickers. The in-house counsel for American Family Insurance was present for Brent’s opening and he told Brent that he liked both Brent’s opening and his bumper sticker. Brent’s bumper sticker was, “Failure to yield, yields disaster.” He developed his bumper sticker at the College with his peers and instructors. The Defense used their opening to admit that their client was at fault and was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The only thing they disputed was the amount of damages. Brent’s rules went as follows:
- A driver making a left turn must yield to oncoming traffic to prevent crashes and protect us all from mayhem.
- A driver must keep a careful lookout for others on the road to prevent crashes and protect us all from mayhem.
Witnesses:
Every witness Brent brought to the stand was a damages witness. Brent started with an eyewitness, who also happened to be a friend of his client. His client’s friend gave the story of liability and damages. He testified to the plaintiff’s health and demeanor after the wreck, as well as to the effect that the injuries would have on the plaintiff’s daily routine and ability to work.
Brent also called on the defendant driver. Brent had the defendant agree to the safety rules. Brent then asked the defendant what he did for a living and had him to describe the physical demands of his job. The defendant mentioned that his job requires him to lift, pull, and walk. The defendant agreed that his own job was physically demanding on his body. Brent then discussed each bone the plaintiff broke and how each limited the plaintiff physically. Brent asked the defendant if those same injuries would limit the defendant’s ability to perform his job and daily activities. The defendant agreed that plaintiff’s injuries would also limit him also. Brent asked the defendant whether he would want to be compensated if he could no longer perform the tasks required of an EMT and the defendant agreed. The jury was able to see that this case was not about the plaintiff’s injuries, but about anyone who is injured because of someone else’s negligence.
Brent also called his clients’ employer to testify about the plaintiff’s harms and losses. The employer testified to how these injuries would affect the plaintiff’s ability to remain a mechanic. He talked about the body parts involved with being a mechanic and discussed the physical toll that the job has taken on his body after several years in the profession. Given the plaintiff’s injuries, his employer testified that is was very unlikely that the plaintiff would be able to continue as a mechanic in the future.
The last person to take the stand was the plaintiff’s sister. Her testimony was emotional—she talked about how she received a call on the night of the wreck from the EMT, and showed up at the hospital not knowing if her brother would be alive. She witnessed the limitations of his injuries and even allowed him to live with her while he recovered. She talked about his difficulties and took him off-Code. No longer was he the big rough criminal, but simply a brother.
His sister was crucial. She humanized him and showed the jury that he was appreciative of those who helped him. She testified to the fact that her brother would never be the same. By the end of her testimony, she and the plaintiff were in tears. The jury perceived her testimony to be real and honest.
Closing:
During closing, Brent weaved in his theme of responsibility and equality. He told the jury that there are three steps to taking responsibility. Brent informed that for a person to truly take responsibility a person must 1) apologize, 2) admit, and 3) remedy. Brent conceded that defendant apologized and admitted his fault; however, he had not made the client whole, and that was the remedy. Brent argued that the Defense was not trying to make the plaintiff whole again. Instead they were showing evidence of plaintiff’s criminal history and attacking his credibility. Brent pointed out that the Defense did not call a single doctor in this case to say that the plaintiff was not hurt. They simply placed his client’s criminal convictions on the projector in hopes that the jury would not like the plaintiff and give the Defense a discount or pass. That, he argued, was not accepting responsibility.
Brent argued that the jury had the opportunity to teach equality to the Defense and force them to take responsibility. The Defense was asking the jury to treat the plaintiff differently because of his criminal past. Brent argued that we must treat all people equally in the civil justice system. Brent argued that the jury’s role was to place a value on plaintiff’s harms and losses and to sign the verdict form. He argued that it was the jury’s job to convey what these harms and losses are worth. That way, when a doctor, lawyer, or neighbor suffers from those injuries, that jury would be responsible for the benchmark set in the city of St. Louis. He told the jury that their verdict would tell the Defense that they treat the plaintiff the same as anyone else and hold the defendant responsible for the injuries caused and the harms and losses suffered.
Brent spread the Tentacles of Danger by getting the defendant to admit on the stand that anyone could have been riding on that motorcycle. In closing, Brent reminded the jury of that and how the defendant admitted that he thought that he had hit a jogger at the time of the crash. He told the jury that the criminal justice system had already punished the plaintiff for his mistakes in the past and, therefore, that discipline was not in their job to impart.
VERDICT:
The jury returned with a verdict of $1.75 million. According to Brent, his focus groups taught him where to go with his safety rules, how to take his client off-Code, what harms and losses drove the case, and where to focus to overcome the negative attribution in this case. To say that Brent had an uphill battle is an understatement. Despite Brent’s unstable client and his pending felonies, the Reptile© came out on top. This case is proof that the Reptile© works.
According to Brent, “If you can get the jury to understand that giving the defendant a pass poses a bigger danger to the community than enforcing the safety rules, then you are one step closer to winning you’re a case and properly advocating for your client.” Brent left this trial with not only a win, but also a stronger belief in the Reptile©.