Goldberg & Rosen Attorneys Net More Than $5 Million for Client Injured in Car Crash
With the help of attorney Zachary Bodenheimer, the brotherly duo of Brett and Judd Rosen fought an uphill battle to argue for an unlikely client in litigation over a life-altering accident.
February 11, 2019 at 04:38 PM
5 minute read
There are automobile bumps and bruises and then there are cataclysmic car crashes. Unfortunately for Miami resident David Brown, he found himself stuck with the latter.
While driving to work for his new job as an electrician assistant, Brown's 2012 Honda CR-V was T-boned at the intersection of Southwest 88th Street and Southwest 117th Avenue around 5:30 a.m. on Feb. 25, 2015. Upon being struck, Brown's car began to spin before eventually giving way to a roll. After being picked up and transported to Kendall Regional Hospital, Brown's situation only worsened. Having suffered a traumatic brain injury and with his blood pressure rising, he was placed into a medically induced coma to ease his breathing. He also endured a stroke, and required a tracheotomy, which led to more medical complications.
After being unable to speak, eat or drink for two years, Brown is doing much better these days, his attorney says. With the help of medical professionals and his legal team at Miami law firm Goldberg & Rosen, his discomfort has been allayed with almost $5.4 million from the driver who'd collided with him.
“We knew going into this case there were obstacles,” said Goldberg & Rosen attorney Brett Rosen. With the help of his brother, Judd, as well as fellow firm member Zachary Bodenheimer, Rosen and the others persuaded a Miami-Dade jury to reach a nearly $10.6 million verdict for their client. However, this substantial sum wasn't reached easily, with 49 percent of fault assigned to Brown on the verdict form.
“It was a he-said, she-said,” Rosen said, noting there were no eyewitnesses to the early-morning incident. Additionally, Brown's status as a convicted felon with an eighth-grade education did not help to endear him to jurors. His testimony didn't help either.
“He was confused about which lane of traffic he was in, and that was a major part of [the defense's] theme: that he didn't know which lane … and what company he was going to work for,” Rosen said.
Rosen attributed Brown's not knowing what company he was going to work for to his client's status as a new hire. Through diligence, Brown's legal team was able to find compelling evidence assigning fault to the other driver.
While he was examining evidence from the crash, Rosen made an eyebrow-raising discovery.
“I'm looking through the photos again and I realize that her visor on her driver's side is down,” Rosen said. “It wouldn't make sense for the visor to be down on her driver's side if it wasn't on her passenger's side. I looked on her Facebook and I saw she went to makeup school. I argued to the jury she was actually putting her makeup on, because why else would she have her visor down?”
Rosen also cited cross-examination of the defendant as well as her partner as particularly pivotal moments in the case.
“Once we were able to get out the fact the defendant admitted Brown's car came from 117th Avenue, that became hard to overcome,” Rosen said. “They tried to call a surprise witness, [the defendant's] boyfriend at the time. When I crossed him I was able to get him to admit the only thing the defendant told him at the scene was David's vehicle was coming north. So I went two for two on that.”
Rosen said his team repeatedly cited the defendant's testimony for the remainder of the case, as it placed doubt on the findings of their own expert. However, he acknowledged opposing counsel made for a formidable opponent and called the defendant's attorney, Dan Martinez, a “cream of the crop, brilliant guy.”
Martinez did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
At the end of the day, Rosen attributes their success to the teamwork of the Goldberg & Rosen firm.
“We're nothing without our team. We have a great staff, great paralegals, we have a great system in place for trying these types of cases. A lot of the legwork was done before the trial because we had to figure out these issues and how people would be receptive to them,” he said. “We felt we made very few, if any, mistakes, which never happens in a trial. It just doesn't happen. Thank goodness they got the right decision because we believe in our client and the tragedy that he went through.”
Case: David Brown and Tania Jenkins v. Marisol Lugardo-Soto
Case no.: 2015-008856 CA 10
Description: Negligence
Filing date: April 17, 2015
Verdict date: Dec. 6, 2018
Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter Lopez
Plaintiffs attorneys: Brett Rosen, Judd Rosen and Zachary Bodenheimer; Goldberg & Rosen
Defense attorney: Daniel Martinez and Ben Thomas, Martinez Denbo
Verdict amount: $10,577,853.93
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250