Lawyers Do Battle in $30M 'Hand Verdict' Appeal
The Georgia Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Tuesday afternoon in the appeal of what has become known among lawyers as the $30 million "hand…
October 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM
3 minute read
Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight (left) and Ben Brodhead of Brodhead Law.
The Georgia Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Tuesday afternoon in the appeal of what has become known among lawyers as the $30 million “hand verdict.”
The auto case verdict was delivered in September 2016 by a Fulton County jury for injuries to the plaintiff's hand and arm. Laurie Webb Daniel, chair of Holland & Knight's national appellate team and leader of the firm's Atlanta litigation practice, told the court she wouldn't belabor the sheer amount of the verdict—although she did mention it was “many, many times” in excess of judgments in comparable cases. Instead she focused on Fulton County State Court Judge Eric Richardson's instructions to the jury.
The judge, Daniel said, declined to include in the jury charge the sole defense raised by her client, Abdulmohsen Almassud: That he lost control of his Jeep because of a mechanical defect in the steering. He had recently modified the Jeep for off-road use.
“He was trying to upgrade,” Daniel said. “He had spent a lot of money.”
As for the sum, in her brief asking the court to overturn the verdict and order a new trial, Daniel called it a “patently excessive award tainted by passion and prejudice.”
Luisa Mezquital, a 29-year-old factory worker at the time of the 2012 accident, injured her hand and lost a finger when Almassud's Jeep crossed the centerline on a Forsyth County road and hit her minivan in 2012. Her attorney, Ben Brodhead of Brodhead Law, said he decided not to have her testify or attend the 2016 trial because of the severity of her post-traumatic stress disorder from the crash. He produced a psychiatrist to testify to that effect.
Brodhead also said after the verdict that the defense had refused multiple offers to settle for the $100,000 insurance policy limit.
Arguing against Daniel Tuesday before a panel that included Presiding Judge Christopher McFadden and Judges Elizabeth Branch and Charles Bethel, Brodhead focused on the strength of his case at trial.
“The verdict was supported by the evidence,” Brodhead said. “Not only did the jury agree with the evidence, but the trial judge agreed with the evidence.”
In his brief, Brodhead accused Daniel of “intentional misrepresentations of both law and fact” in an “attempt to show error where none exists.”
In his argument, Brodhead took note of the limitations of the appellate forum compared to a trial: “There's nothing I can say to y'all in 15 minutes that will make you understand it, but the jury spent a week on it and understood it.”
The case is Almassud v. Mezquital, No. A17A2119.
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
© 2025 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 AllRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
'Stock Car Monopoly'?: Winston Lawsuit Alleges NASCAR Anticompetitive Scheme
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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