In today’s fast-paced world, filled with emotional narratives and information overloads, one might think the world of litigation is shifting away from its core principles. However, the essence of any trial remains rooted in two timeless cornerstones: facts and responsibility. This was beautifully illustrated in a recent courtroom victory involving the representation of a top-tier hotel company by our trial attorneys Steve Grebing and Saleem Hawatmeh at Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Walshok LLP.

The personal injury case, at first glance, seemed rife with complexities. The Plaintiff, a former dentist, alleged he sustained an orthopedic injury attributed to a fall through a hammock on the hotel premises. Plaintiff underwent spine surgery and claimed he would need future spine surgeries and permanent placement of a spinal cord stimulator. With an assertive demand of $8.7 million in damages at trial, the weight of the claim was palpable.

However, for experienced attorneys like Mr. Grebing and Mr. Hawatmeh, the defense approach was straightforward: take responsibility and turn to the facts. While medical expert testimony is a crucial component of personal injury litigation, its credibility is paramount. Challenging the veracity of the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s alleged injury, given the questionable pre-existing history, became a pivotal point for the defense. Facts, after all, don’t just stand alone – they derive strength from their source and context. And while facts inform the jury’s decision-making process, they also illuminate the areas where responsibility should be rightfully assumed.

In today’s age, the legal landscape remains rife with misconceptions. One such belief is that jurors, especially when pitted against big corporations, lean towards delivering hefty, “nuclear verdicts.” Yet, experience and insight reveal a different story. Jurors are, in essence, seekers of authenticity and responsibility. Rather than penalizing companies without cause, jurors tend to resonate with transparent accountability. Recognizing this, Mr. Grebing and Mr. Hawatmeh’s defense strategy was to take responsibility while ensuring their client was not unduly burdened with unrelated or inflated liabilities.  It is in this sincere approach, devoid of distracting theatrics, that resonates most with jurors.

The culmination of this balanced, fact-centric approach was a verdict of $475,000. Not a seven-figure verdict figure out of thin air, not a reaction to public sentiment, but a number rooted in facts and framed by responsibility.

At Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Walshok LLP, our commitment goes beyond just legal defense. We strive to embody principles that resonate both in and out of the courtroom. For those in search of legal representation that blends integrity with intellect, we are here to champion your cause.

To learn more about our fact-based approach and insight into our methodologies that prioritize unwavering authenticity, connect with us today.