Stock image. 

Fort Lauderdale, FL— Attorneys this week debated whether Wells Fargo mismanaged a massive trust fund intended for thousands of children who are members of Florida’s Seminole Tribe, as trial opened against the banking giant. Gopher, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et al.

Stock image. 

Miami, FL— A Florida jury earlier this month found Miami-Dade County liable for the injuries a bicyclist suffered when she was struck by a security gate arm, handing down a nearly $5 million verdict in the case, while also clearing the security company that oversaw the gate. LaTour v. Miami-Dade County, et al., 2018-CA-000853. 

Stock image.

Miami, FL— Attorneys Tuesday debated who was responsible for the bicycle accident that severely injured a Florida woman’s arm, as trial opened against Miami-Dade County and a security company tasked with overseeing a subdivision exit gate. LaTour, et al. v. Miami-Dade County, et al., 2018-CA-000853. 

In any trial involving a corporate defendant, jurors can carry inherent, subconscious biases against that corporation, which may turn into a key hurdle for the defense. Introducing a defendant corporation in a way that gives it a “face” beyond the logo can be a powerful way to lay the critical groundwork for overcoming those biases. And in a trial over the cancer a man developed after taking diabetes medication Actos, D’Lesli Davis’ introduction of manufacturer Takeda painted the company as just "folks,” helping set up a defense win. 

Michael Goldberg and Joseph Fried discuss how they won a $16.2 million verdict in a crash case against Amazon. Learn how to watch the full discussion.

Framing a case as a system failure can be a particularly powerful approach in a plaintiff’s claim against a defendant company. And during a wide-ranging discussion of how they won a $16.2 million verdict in a groundbreaking crash trial against Amazon, Fried Goldberg’s Michael Goldberg and Joseph Fried detailed how they argued that the crash stemmed from a failure of the delivery giant's system.