ACCIDENTS & INJURIES
CONTINGENCY FEES!
Accident cases can be handled on a “contingency fee” basis. That means a percentage of the amount of money obtained. The lawyer must get money for you, or you pay nothing!
(CLICK ON THE HEADLINE TO DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT)
This case arose out of the unsafe SUV designs of the 1980s and 90s, which caused numerous serious injuries and deaths during that time period. The witness was a former product engineer. His testimony was potentially very damaging to the manufacturer because a number of his safety recommendations had been rejected. Prior to the lawsuit against the company, the man had left the company and had little subsequent contact with it until it became clear that his favorable testimony was needed to reduce judgments and settlements. He was miraculously awarded some $3 million dollars worth of so-called “consulting contracts” by the auto maker at a critical point in the litigation. Subsequently, his testimony became staunchly protective of the company. This is a transcript of the cross examination by Mr. Goodman. At the time, Mr. Goodman was working together with several other lawyers. The testimony was taken in Dearborn, Michigan.
This is the transcript of Mr. Goodman’s closing argument in a case against a major manufacturer of dump trucks in the 1990s. The defendant manufacturer refused to offer a fair settlement and Mr. Goodman took the case to trial. The jury ended up awarding $2.62 million in damages to the widow of a man who was killed by the tailgate of their truck. Although larger verdicts have been entered since then, at the time it was the single largest jury verdict ever entered in that county, which was and still is one of Florida’s largest. This concluding speech was given in Clearwater, Florida.
This is a trial brief, filed by Mr. Goodman with the administrative court overseeing a disputed worker’s compensation case. Eventually, the case was resolved with a package settlement worth over $2 million dollars.
The defense attorney believed that this man, who was a fellow employee, would be a star witness. It didn’t turn out that way. The multi-billion dollar negligent manufacturer offered this “testimony” hoping to pin blame upon the innocent victim. Thus, in the first section of the transcript, the man’s statements, as solicited by the defense lawyer, in “direct examination”, seemed very damaging. Then, in the second half, Mr. Goodman got the chance to get up and cross examine the alleged “witness”. His stinging cross left the man humiliated, laying bare for the jury the apparent falsehoods and conflicts with prior statements under oath. In the end, the jury recognized who was in the right and did justice by awarding Mr. Goodman’s client a multi-million dollar verdict.