Clyde & Co trial team secures significant Arizona defense victory

Clyde & Co recently secured a significant trial victory in Pima County, Arizona, following a jury trial with disputed liability, severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries, permanent injury claims, disfigurement, lost wages and claimed damages of USD 1 million.

Equity Partner Melissa Gardner and Associate Matthew Epstein successfully defended the matter after the plaintiff refused to negotiate below underlying policy limits. Senior Counsel Stephan Hoffman supported the trial team as appellate monitoring counsel during trial.
 
The defendant admitted to responding officers that he entered the intersection against a red light and could not avoid the accident. This admission was supported by an eyewitness that testified live at trial. The defendant subsequently passed away before trial and could not refute either the officer or eyewitness testimony. The defense designated the plaintiff's husband, who was driving the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger, as a non-party at fault and elicited testimony throughout trial that the non-party failed to keep a proper lookout and yield to oncoming traffic while making a left-hand turn.
 
The plaintiff sought at least USD 1 million in damages, alleging multiple wrist fractures requiring two surgeries, a frozen shoulder, permanent disability, past and future loss of normal life, anxiety, disfigurement, lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering. Despite the challenging liability facts and the absence of the defendant's testimony, the defense successfully demonstrated that the non-party driver's conduct substantially contributed to causing the accident and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
 
The case was tried before a Tucson jury, where Arizona no longer permits peremptory jury strikes.
 
The jury allocated liability nearly equally between the non-party driver and defendant, and the plaintiff's recovery was reduced to approximately USD 120,750. Prior to trial, the defense filed an offer of judgment of USD 200,000 and extended a pre-trial settlement offer above that amount. At the conclusion of trial, the plaintiff received roughly one-tenth of what she asked the jury for and significantly less than the defendant’s last settlement offer.
 
The result reflects a creative trial strategy in an exceptionally difficult liability case, despite highly unfavorable facts.