By: MICHAEL PETERSON, KEENAN LAW FIRM
This month’s Reptile Superstar is Mike Haight. Mike has been practicing law for over 20 years in Las Vegas, NV. He and his partner’s firm focuses solely on Plaintiff’s PI.
Outside of the law, Mike is involved in his wife and daughter’s non-profit organization “Serve/Receive”, which provides financial and academic support along with peer mentoring to disadvantaged young girls who have an interest in volleyball and other team sports but who otherwise could not afford to participate.
Introduction to Reptile:
Mike’s Reptile journey started in 2010, when he read the “REPTILE: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution.” Mike attended the Welcome to the Revolution seminar in Las Vegas that year and thoroughly enjoyed the seminar; but he did not make the decision to immerse himself in the Reptile until 2012.
Mike has now attended several seminars and taken five KBC Courses. His favorite was the Damages Course. According to Mike, “the College Courses are amazing. The information taught has revolutionized my practice of law and reinvigorated me as a lawyer.”
Facts of the Case:
This case involves a motor vehicle collision. The wreck occurred during stop and go rush hour traffic at 5:00 pm in Las Vegas. While the Plaintiff was stopped in traffic, the Defendant’s vehicle rear-ended his car. The Plaintiff learned after the collision that the Defendant was tending to his two dogs rather than watching the road ahead. The police were called to the scene to inspect the wreck. There was less than $400.00 in damage done to either vehicle and both drivers told the police that they were not injured, so no police report was done.
The Plaintiff was 65 years old. Two days after the wreck, Mike’s client began to experience pain in his neck and back, but Mike’s client didn’t see a chiropractor until a week later. He then had chiropractic therapy for 3 1/2 months and incurred medical bills of $5,084. He was salaried and did not miss any time from work. The insurance company did not believe anyone could have been hurt in the wreck, and only offered $200.00 to settle the claim. Therefore, Mike’s client had no choice but to file a lawsuit against the Defendant.
In Nevada smaller litigation cases, you must attend a mandatory but non-binding arbitration. At the arbitration the Defendant insinuated that Mike’s client set up the wreck and then lied about his injuries. At the conclusion of arbitration, the arbitrator ordered a $9,000 award for the Plaintiff. However, since the order was non-binding, the Defense appealed and made the decision to go to trial. In Nevada, these sorts of cases must be tried from start to finish in one day in front of a jury of only 4 people.
Before trial, the Defendant offered only $1,000 to settle the case. Mike’s client rejected the offer because he would have still owed money for medical bills. On the morning of the trial the Defendant “stipulated” to liability, and then objected to Mike’s attempted use of safety rules since liability was no longer in dispute. The Court sustained this objection, agreeing that the case was “only about damages.” The Defense had also filed an MIL to preclude Mike from claiming the Defendant had attempted to avoid his responsibility, which also was granted.
Pre Trial Reptile:
Prior to trial, Mike focused this case many times. Mike was interested in discovering how Bubba would react to his client’s age, pre-existing diabetes, kidney, and heart trouble, and the fact that the majority of these specialists failed to make any mention of the wreck or Mike’s client’s neck or back pain in their records. Mike used Don Keenan’s Witness Prep Method to help his client develop his Major truths, so that he could defend himself against these traps at trial. One of his client’s major truths was that he told his doctors about his neck and back pain and that he did not know why the information was not in the records. Another key truth was that he only wanted his medical bills paid and nothing more.
After the wreck, Mike’s client had been diagnosed with neck and back sprain and strains. It was during the Reptile in Trial College Course last year that Mike learned to embrace the term “whiplash” instead of running from it. Mike focused the term and discovered that the focus group not only understood the severity of the type injuries that can follow a whiplash but also the potential for permanent injury.
His focus group participants did not believe the term had a negative connection, and they understood that a person could develop lifelong problems because of a whiplash injury, even without a lot of visible vehicle damage. This gave Mike confidence knowing that a Jury could connect his client’s injuries, despite the low visible damage to the vehicles.
Reptiled the case:
Voir dire:
Under Nevada’s Short Trial rules, Mike only had 30 minutes for jury selection and only 2 ½ hours more or the rest of his case. Mike’s entire Voir Dire stemmed from the information he learned watching the Keenan Ball Voir Dire video, along with what he learned about Rat killing questions. Mike went off-code by asking the 12-person panel about their passions, their understandings of what other people think about trial lawyers, and if they would permit him to earn their trust. He talked about the safety rules, and he addressed how the jury had to follow traffic safety rules when they came to the Courtroom that morning. Furthermore, Mike focused on what it means to be accountable for your actions. He used the analogy of the broken window, and he trusted his WWDYL questions to get rid of 3 rats using for-cause objections, even though his prior instincts would have been to keep 2 of them on the panel. Mike believes the information he learned at the Reptile College truly provided him a jury that could keep an open mind.
Case in Chief:
Mike called the Defendant as his first witness to use him to establish the safety rules. Mike’s bumper sticker for the case was the one his paralegal came up with – “the best prevention is to pay attention.” Interestingly, when the Defendant took the stand and Mike asked him whether he had ever heard that bumper sticker before, the Defendant answered “yes”. Mike then asked the Defendant to explain what the statement meant.
This led Mike into his safety rules. Mike wrote his safety rules on a flip board for the jury to see. Mike’s first safety rule went as follows: “a driver must pay proper attention to road ahead to prevent serious injury and death to us all”. However, the Defense objected to use of his safety rules, and the Judge sustained the objection concluding they were improper reiterating, “This case is only about damages.” Despite the objection, the jury saw Mike’s safety rules and also saw how afraid of them the Defense was.
The Judge also went on to rule that Mike could not use the term “safety rule” at trial. However, Mike was a woodpecker. So Mike had the Defendant admit to the jury that he had read the NV Driver’s handbook, where it states in its preamble that this book contains the “rules of the road,” that are in place “for driver safety.” The Defendant agreed that the DMV Handbook said those things and that it did contain the traffic rules designed to protect everyone on the roadways. As a result, for the rest of the trial Mike was able to refer to the traffic safety rules as the “Rules of the Road.”
Mike then had the Defendant “Spread the Tentacles of Danger” by asking the Defendant to name the worst that can happen when you do not follow the “Rules of the Road.” The Defendant agreed that a driver must pay proper attention to the road ahead to protect us all from harm, that a Driver must follow a safe distance behind the cars ahead to protect us all from harm, and that a driver must remove potential distractions from inside his vehicle to protect us all from harm.
The answers the Defendant gave matched up perfectly with Mike’s safety rules. Mike’s goal during direct was for the Defendant to give credence to his safety rules, so that the jury could understand that Defendant was aware of the safety rules when he violated them.
Mike then asked the defendant to admit to his Interrogatory answers and deposition where he stated that Mike’s client had “stopped for no reason.” This drew objections, which Judge sustained. Mike then asked the Defendant if he thought Mike’s client was lying about being hurt. Without hearing, an objection from the Defense, the Judge told the Defendant not to answer and asked the jury to disregard that question. Mike rephrased and asked the Defendant, “Do you believe anyone could have been hurt in this collision.” The judge allowed it. The Defendant said “No” and went on to say that he did not think that anyone could have been injured in this collision. This was an important part of Mike’s goal of polarizing the case.
Mike then placed his client’s treating chiropractor on the stand. Mike’s client had been in a wreck 4 years earlier suffering neck and shoulder pain, and he had filed suit on that case as well. Rather than be nervous as to how the jury would react, using techniques learned from the MIST book, Mike had his chiropractor explain to the jury that the prior wreck had made his client more susceptible to injury in this one.
He also explained that factors such as age, physical condition, and not bracing for the wreck all combined to cause a whiplash injury. The chiropractor then used demonstrative evidence to educate the jury on the mechanism of injury, and he also addressed the opposing expert’s claim that the treatment failed to document the Plaintiff’s condition.
To bring even more credibility to his client’s testimony, Mike had his client’s boss, wife, daughter, and co-worker testify as “before and after” witnesses. Each of them verified the changes in his work habits and lifestyle since the wreck. They testified to the Plaintiff’s ongoing struggle, and his willingness to continue to fight.
The theme of Defendant’s case was the client was a cheat. The Defense hired a chiropractor from California to review and comment on Mike’s client’s unrelated medical records – about 700 pages, and to heavily criticize the care he had received from his chiropractor.
Mike chose on cross-exam to keep it brief with the DME to avoid justifying his existence. Mike wanted to place him on-code by asking a few key questions. Mike asked whether he had conducted a physical exam. The DME did not. During the Defendant’s case-in-chief the Defense had repeatedly insinuated that Mike’s client was dishonest and opportunistic. They insinuated that Mike’s client must be faking due to the lack of visible damage to the cars, because Mike’s client told the police officer that he was not hurt at the scene and claimed not to have pain for two days, because he waited a week before he went to the doctor, and continued to clock in at work.
Mike asked the DME non-leading questions about whether he was aware that his client told the police officer that he was not hurt and that he waited seven days to go to the chiropractor. The DME proudly said he was aware of those things. The DME also testified that he was aware that the Plaintiff had not missed any work. Mike then asked the DME if a “faker” would do these things. The DME could not answer, but the seeds were planted with the jury. Mike followed up by asking the DME about his pay and the amount of work he does for the Defense. This was objected to by the Defense but overruled by the Judge.
Mike then used his client’s employee files to show that his yearly reviews constantly raved about his honesty and high ethical standards. The jury could clearly see that the Defenses’ characterization of the Plaintiff was underserved and false, and that the DME was simply a hired gun for the Defense. Using the techniques, he learned from the “Reptile in the Mist” book, Mike was able to effectively present the DME as a “painted lady.”
Closing:
Mike credits the arguments he made in his Closing to Don Keenan. During his close, Mike utilized the blog article Don Keenan wrote about the “Price an average American has to pay for justice”. Mike started his Closing by discussing the importance of the civil jury system in America. Mike discussed how America is set apart from the rest of the world in that a person’s peers determine the outcome of our conflicts.
Mike explained to the jury that while they might think they were on this jury by chance, they were instead “chosen” to render a verdict in this case. Mike then reminded them of the rules of the road, their purpose, and he used the Defendant’s own testimony to remind of what could happen when a person chooses not follow the rules of the road. Mike talked about low property damage, and analogized the low visible damage to his client’s vehicle to eggs in an egg carton – by stating that the condition of the carton rarely reflects the condition of the eggs inside.
Mike also discussed how accepting fault is not the same as making things right. He tied that back in to the broken window analogy he used during jury selection. Mike discussed how a Defendant cannot just admit he was wrong, but that he also had to make it right. Mike explained that the Defendant made a choice not to pay attention, and that choice placed everyone at risk. During his close, Mike placed the phrase “Conduct rewarded is conducted repeated” on the board for the jury to read.
Mike then reinforced the jury’s importance to the community when he read to the jury an inscription on the wall in the main hall of the Court House which says “when you have protected one person, you have protected everyone.” At the end of his Closing, Mike asked the jury for a verdict of $25,000. The Defense argued in its close that Plaintiff should get nothing.
Verdict:
After deliberating for an hour, the jury returned with a verdict of $25,000. The Judge did not let them ask questions of jury, but as they left the Courtroom all four of the jurors shook Mike and his client’s hands.
Mike was humbled by how the jury truly did “ring the bell of justice hard and loud,” and he felt they truly understood that they were “chosen” as jurors for a reason. Mike witnessed how the Plaintiffs’ Bar truly can retake the High Ground even when the deck is stacked against us, and how the Reptile will allow a Plaintiff to cut through BS and reveal the truth to the jury.
In Mike’s opinion if we utilize the common sense and the Black letter law techniques that we are being taught, then we should feel confident that the jury would get it right. Despite this being a MIST case, Mike believed there is no substitute for hard work and preparation. A great part of which comes down to simply utilizing the techniques taught in the Reptile books and in the Reptile Courses.
According to Mike, the best way to change the tort reform system is by winning the smaller cases. Mike and his partner have challenged themselves and all of their associates to try a minimum of two cases this year. Congratulations to Mike on a great job and a great verdict for his client!