Arguing non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in a case that involves a serious, but not necessarily catastrophic injury can be difficult. Framing the injury so that jurors understand its severity while ensuring jurors don’t feel that the loss has been exaggerated is key to setting up the best possible award. And in the latest Trial Technique Spotlight, Shane Read, one of the country’s preeminent trial consultants, spotlights how Bethany Schneider powerfully framed a non-catastrophic traumatic brain injury to set up a $5.5 million total verdict. 

Stock image. 

Atlanta, GA — The Georgia Court of Appeals last week upheld a total award of more than $6 million following the traumatic brain injury a taxi driver suffered when he was struck by a pipe that fell from a hotel rooftop. 

Arguing the long-lasting effects of a traumatic brain injury at trial can be difficult.  Symptoms may not be immediately and obviously visible to others, and the defense may argue that the impact of the injury is less than what the accident victim claims. But at trial in June over a traumatic brain injury a Georgia taxi driver suffered, Bethany Schneider’s vivid closing countered defense arguments on the injury's severity and won a seven-figure verdict.