By: MICHAEL PETERSON, KEENAN LAW FIRM
This month’s Reptile© Superstar is Andrew Garza. Attorney Garza is a Connecticut native. Andrew currently works at the Law Offices of Andrew P. Garza, L.L.C, where he specializes in personal injury, workers’ compensation, and criminal defense. He and his Reptile©-partner, Ryan McKeen, will soon open the Connecticut Trial Firm, LLC, which will try Reptile© cases into the future.
Outside of the law, Andrew enjoys camping, carpentry, tennis, softball, snowboarding, and cooking. He currently lives in Hartford County, Connecticut with his wife and young son.
Introduction to Reptile©:
His partner and friend, Ryan McKeen, introduced Andrew to the Reptile©. Andrew attended the Welcome to the Revolution Seminar in December of 2014. He has graduated from a few courses at the Keenan Ball College and has purchased both The Keenan Edge 1 and 2. Andrew was skeptical when he first heard of the Reptile©. After attending his first seminar, he realized the Reptile© was not a bag of tricks. According to Andrew, “If you work hard to embed the teachings of the College in your practice and in your life, then you should expect the trial success to follow.” All Andrew has heard since his introduction to the Reptile© was that “The jury does not care about his client.”
It was not until last October that Andrew truly understood the meaning of that statement. It was his 4th Reptile© focus group. Andrew was watching the focus group in the background as another lawyer was leading the discussion. Andrew began to notice, that as the other lawyer began to shift the focus of the discussion towards the Plaintiff the negative attribution from the focus group participants began to pour out. The lack of sympathy and viciousness that they showed towards the Plaintiff was eye opening. From that day, Andrew has made a concerted effort to present the case from the Defendant’s perspective.
Facts of the Case:
This case involved a T-bone collision. The Defendant ran a stop sign and T-boned the car that Andrew’s client was in. The Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries because of the wreck. The client’s medical bills amounted to $24,000. Andrew and Ryan represented the passenger and another attorney represented the driver. The biggest hurdle in the case was the fact that Andrew and Ryan were trying this case with a non-Reptile© attorney. This attorney believed he and Ryan should focus the case on the plaintiffs. Andrew and Ryan disagreed because they wanted to focus the case on the Defendant’s actions. Another issue was the Plaintiff’s lack of treatment. The Plaintiff finished treatment about a year and half from the trial date. Ryan wanted to limit her testimony at trial, as it would only place them on code. The co-plaintiff’s attorney spent significant time on his client’s injuries as he thought she was the best person to discuss her injuries.
Outside of these internal issues, the Defendant opted to take responsibility at scene, but then denied liability at his deposition and during discovery. The Defense then readmitted liability an hour prior to opening statements. Prior to accepting liability, the Defense made the argument that the stop sign was obstructing the Defendant’s view. The Defense also accused the Plaintiff of faking her injuries, despite never conducting a medical examination prior trial. The Defense’s last offer prior to jury selection was $30,000. The Plaintiff refused the offer.
Pre Trial Reptile©:
The biggest issue in the case was the Plaintiff’s current condition. The Plaintiff claimed that she was still recovering from her injuries. The co-plaintiff’s attorney wanted to spend significant time discussing his client’s injuries. Andrew, being a student of the Reptile©, did not believe in this strategy, and so he and Ryan organized a focus group to test this theory. They used this Focus Group to determine whether they should have their client testify to her condition at trial. Andrew told the focus group about his client’s current health condition and the limitations that her injury placed on her daily activities.
Andrew was not surprised when the focus group came back with negative attribution. They saw her as whiner, and did not believe that she was as hurt as she claimed to be. The focus group’s negative attribution taught them to leave all testimony concerning the client’s current health condition with their before and after witnesses. Ryan and Andrew also deployed Keenan’s Witness Preparation method to ensure that their client would walk into court armed with her truths so that she would make a favorable impression upon the jury.
Reptiled the case:
During jury selection, Andrew walked the jury through the apology stool and the definition of accountability. He asked the jury what it means to take responsibility and whether their definition involves making the wrong right. Andrew asked the jury about their passions and discussed the concept of safety rules. Andrew asked the venire whether they believed that people have the right to violate the safety rules of the community. All of them said, “No.” Andrew used his WWDYL questions and burden of proof questions to eliminate the rats. He also asked the jury permission to earn their trust.
Opening:
The Defendant admitted to liability prior to Andrew’s opening. Andrew figured they might admit liability, which is why he chose to center his case on the Defendant’s lack of accountability. During his Opening, Andrew further reiterated what it means to take full responsibility, and informed the jury of his safety rules. His safety rule went as follows: All drivers must stop at stop signs to prevent death and harm. Andrew’s bumper sticker went as follows: “If you remember one thing, admitting liability is not the same thing as taking responsibility.”
Andrew’s first witness was the eyewitness to the wreck. Andrew used her testimony to spread the spread the tentacles. He asked her such questions as; “Where did the wreck take place? Was type of community is this? What did you hear during the impact? Did you hear crashing glass, twisted metal, etc.?” The eyewitness had a young child with her at the time of the collision, and so part of her testimony spoke to the fact that her child could have been in the car on the day of the wreck and was playing in a yard near the intersection.
Andrew called the Defendant next. If Andrew could redo this trial, then he would have reconsidered placing the Defendant on the stand. The co-plaintiff’s attorney handled the Defendant’s direct, and so without knowledge of the Reptile©, he had a tendency to go on code by attacking the likeable and elderly Defendant. The attorney spent considerable time discussing the speed of the car and the Plaintiff’s health rather than focusing on the Defendant’s false repentance.
Andrew placed his client on the stand next. He had her discuss the mechanism of injury, her treatment, and the length of her examination. Andrew listened to his focus groups, and had his B&A witnesses talk about his client’s current condition. Andrew focused heavily on Don Keenan’s before and after witness article when he compiled his questions for their direct. He had each witness describe how long he or she had known the plaintiff. Then, he had them all tell a personal story about what each of them noticed about the Plaintiff’s condition prior to and after the wreck.
The witnesses described the client as a social and mobile person. However, since the injury she simply stays home and sleeps. They believed that she was afraid to drive, and that her fear has caused her to withdraw from her family and friends. They testified that before the accident, she never took a sick day. The added stress of her injuries forced her to take more time off from work than she used to. The Defense attempted to cross each of them, but quickly went on code. At one point, the Defense was yelling at the client’s daughter because of her testimony about her mother’s current condition. The Defense’s behavior disgusted the jury, causing several jurors to visibly shaking their heads in disapproval.
Closing:
During Closing, Andrew went back to his theme. He told the jury that, despite the Defendant’s decision to wait until trial to accept responsibility for liability, they still refused to make things right. Andrew placed his timeline on the screen, which showed the mechanism of injury to the jury. Andrew used his timeline to prove to the jury that his client suffered from the injuries she claimed. Andrew told the jury that if the Defense believes that she was hurt because of this wreck, then they must conclude that they are responsible for making the Plaintiff whole. It would simply be the right thing to do.
Andrew felt as though he armed the jury to be an advocate for his client. Andrew also argued that the jury was the conscience of the community. He talked about the price our clients pay to come to trial. He mentioned how the Defense’s late stipulation liability was a slap in the face for his client. Andrew re-addressed his safety rules and bumper sticker. He let the jury know that if these safety rules are important to their community, then they must enforce them with their verdict.
Verdict:
The jury returned with a verdict of $44,151.83. This was the first jury to award non-economic damages in this conservative venue in over a dozen trials. Furthermore, this was Andrew’s first civil jury trial. Trying this case with a non-Reptile© attorney certainly brought its challenges. The co-plaintiff’s attorney was so eager to focus the case on the client rather than the Defendant’s conduct. Andrew does not blame the co-plaintiff’s attorney, as he was the same way prior to his knowledge of the Reptile©. However, he would avoid a consolidated case with a non-Reptile© attorney in the future. Andrew is glad for the lessons he learned during this trial. According to Andrew, “If the Reptile© can help me win a case for my client under these circumstances then it can do it for anyone.” Andrew encourages his fellow peers to embrace the challenge of trying cases. The Reptile© makes Andrew confident in the future success of his Plaintiff’s personal injury cases.