In a high-exposure premises liability trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, Long Beach, WSHB trial attorneys Sam McDermott and Jade Tran secured a $3.775 million verdict against a $21.973 million jury ask. After apportionment of fault among multiple parties, WSHB's international commercial contractor client was ultimately responsible for $2.575 million.
The result was particularly significant given a difficult liability record and an aggressive damages presentation from opposing counsel. Plaintiff, an assistant high school principal, fractured her elbow and patella in a fall at a newly constructed building. She underwent multiple surgeries and remained out of work for approximately 18 months. At trial, her experts predicted future joint replacements, lifelong arthritis and chronic pain, early retirement accompanied by substantial lost earnings, PTSD, and ongoing depression.
Plaintiff entered trial having previously demanded $9,999,999. Before the jury she more than doubled down, asking for $21,973,000.
The liability evidence presented the WSHB team with a formidable challenge. During litigation, a meeting minute surfaced showing WSHB's client was notified of an elevated concrete lip approximately three weeks before the accident and agreed to correct it. Plaintiff made the document a centerpiece of her case, repeatedly attempting to portray the client as a bad actor and use the evidence as a springboard to an eight-figure verdict.
Rather than allow that narrative to define the case, the trial team attacked it from every angle. Extensive witness preparation helped turn a potentially damaging examination of the project superintendent into credible testimony that kept the evidence in perspective. At the same time, McDermott and Tran developed the record necessary to demonstrate that responsibility for the accident did not begin and end with their client.
Courtroom execution ultimately made the difference. Tran's cross-examination of plaintiff acknowledged the seriousness of her original injuries without allowing those injuries to become a proxy for a lifetime of catastrophic damages. She brought out plaintiff's strong support system, positive outlook, and vigorous return to her career, while also establishing that plaintiff failed to watch where she was walking. The jury ultimately assigned plaintiff 5% comparative fault.
McDermott's examination of the school principal established that the school knew about the condition, understood its responsibility for safety on the premises, yet chose not to warn of this particular condition The jury assigned the school district 20% responsibility.
The team also capitalized on the deposition testimony of the project inspector, which exposed significant deficiencies in the inspection process and helped secure an additional 10% allocation of fault to the inspector.
The final numbers tell the story: $21.973 million requested from the jury, $3.775 million awarded, and $2.575 million ultimately attributable to WSHB's client. Plaintiff's effort to turn difficult liability evidence into an eight-figure recovery fell more than $19 million short of the amount sought form the jury.
"This was a case where the plaintiff had a compelling injury story and liability evidence, she believed would drive a large verdict," said McDermott. "Our job was not to ignore the difficult facts, but to put them in their proper context and give the jury a complete picture of responsibility and damages. The jury clearly took that responsibility seriously."
Tran added, "The damages presentation was designed to take the jury far beyond what plaintiff's actual recovery and return to work supported. We focused on the person who was in the courtroom, the life she had resumed, and the evidence of what the future realistically looked like. That distinction mattered."
The result reflects the depth of WSHB's trial team and the extensive preparation behind the verdict. From witness preparation and deposition strategy to cross-examination and allocation of fault, the team methodically addressed a difficult record and gave the jury a basis to reject plaintiff's attempt to transform the case into a nearly $22 million recovery.
Wood Smith Henning & Berman: Your Trusted Partner
Experience the power of a proven industry leader in the law. Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) is renowned globally for our exceptional trial results and expertise in handling complex litigation. With our nationwide network of over 500 lawyers across 43 office locations, we are dedicated to providing comprehensive litigation and counsel to both public and private companies. From start-ups to Fortune 100 corporations, we deliver unrivaled legal representation that consistently achieves favorable outcomes for our clients.
At WSHB, our strength lies in our diverse and accomplished team of attorneys. We boast thought leaders and defense specialists in over 41 fields of practice, covering an extensive range of specialties. Founded in 1997, we are proud to be among the top ten law firms in the nation for diversity, female partners, female lawyers, and Hispanic lawyers. This rich tapestry of diversity forms the foundation of our success when presenting cases to juries of our peers, ensuring we understand the unique nuances underlying each claim.
Our expansive geographic footprint allows us to provide effective and efficient representation to clients nationwide, regardless of their location, background, or legal expertise. By prioritizing strategic and cost-effective approaches to litigation, our dedicated attorneys work tirelessly to protect the interests of our clients. We have a track record of success, securing numerous victories such as summary judgments and defense verdicts on behalf of our clients. As a trial firm, we have taken over 2,000 cases to verdict, making us well-equipped to handle even the most complex and high-stakes litigation matters across the country.
