Verdicts by Attorney: Vazquez-Aldana, Jacqueline
Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant – our client – Mall negligently maintained its parking lot area and, as a result, was the direct cause of the incident. In arguments, Plaintiff attempted to establish liability based on failure to have additional crosswalks, stops signs and other safety traffic control devices in its parking lot. Nonetheless, in depositions, it was established that the Co-Defendant driver, was at a complete stop prior to making the left turn and was also familiar with the parking lot layout as he had been visiting the Mall since 1987. This key testimony aided in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that the Mall was negligent in its design of its parking lot, which was the cause of the accident and injuries alleged. The Mall argued that the inclusion of most of the traffic control devices recommended by the Plaintiff’s liability experts would not have altered the outcome of the accident.
Further, Defense expert, Roland Lamb, testified that based on his expertise and experience, the parking lot design was reasonable. Despite naming the driver as a Co-Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue that the driver should not bear any responsibility for the accident and solely focused Plaintiff's case on the Mall as the responsible party. Trial partners Jack D. Luks, and Allison I. Janowitz highlighted this fact coupled with their position that the Mall was not negligent in its parking lot design and/or it was not a legal cause of the accident.
Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated for two hours and returned a complete Defense verdict establishing that Defendant Mall and Co-Defendant driver were not the legal cause of loss or damage.