Zep Construction's Closing Argument in Alterman v. Zep

Posted by msch on Feb 23, 2010 2:44:00 PM

Defense attorney Greg Giannuzzi, representing Zep Construction, challenged the plaintiff's characterization of events.

Giannuzzi began by challenging the credibility of the plaintiff's expert witness, and denying the appropriateness of punitive damages based on a gross negligence standard.

"There cannot be any question that there was a sign," said Giannuzzi, naming three witnesses who testified to seeing blinking lights and/or a sign. Further, said Giannuzzi, there was no criticism of the signage by the Florida DOT, nor of the prior rolling roadblocks.

Giannuzzi argued that there is no difference between a rolling barricade and a rolling roadblock, or a rolling blockade.

But, said Giannuzzi, according to the plaintiff's theory, there was no signage, there was no construction zone. So the truck driver should have stopped, just as if there had been any obstruction in the road, such as due to a fender bender, or slowed traffic due to road debris or a patrol car on the shoulder.

"This rolling roadblock did not change the traffic laws for [the truck driver]," said Giannuzzi. "You could have elephants crossing the road. It doesn't matter what's there. He was still required to stop."

Greg Giannuzzi's closing argument in Alterman v Zep Construction 

Alterman v. Zep Construction is being webcast live by CVN

Topics: Alterman v. Zep Construction, Vehicle Collision