This case settled about 30 days before jury trial was set to begin with Judge Timothy Talyor in San Diego Superior Court. This was a preventable collision between an inattentive employee at a major retail store here in San Diego, and a customer.
When I first got the case, the offer was only $25,000.00. Both my of counsel, and trial partner, Edward J. Babbitt decided to file lawsuit. We litigated this case. I also performed focus groups on the video footage. Jurors come to every trial with what is called "negative attribution." I shouldn't just say jurors, because we all carry some amount of negative attribution to every injury. It is part of our survival mechanism deep in our brains. It tells us "I would not have been injured in the way plaintiff claims, because I would have done X, Y, Z differently." Our brains don't want to think that a particular injury "could" happen to us, so it comes up with creative ways to tell ourselves how and why we would have avoided it. It is the same thing that makes us look at a car wreck when we pass one on the highway - deep down, we want to see the injuries or aftermath that we would have avoided, and plan to avoid in the future.
With this said, who do you believe is either at fault in this preventable incident, or at the very least, who is the majority of fault? Believe it or not, each time we focused group this video, there was always one or two people who believed our client should have seen this coming. This response is coming from that natural part of ourselves which needs "self protection." Anyway, what do you think? Who do you believe could have prevented this 100% from occurring?