Matthew Schwencke details the power of common sense arguments, and how he won a $5 million verdict by appealing to jurors' "common sense." Watch the full interview. | Watch the trial.
An appeal to common sense can be a powerful argument at trial, particularly where jurors bring their own everyday experience to a key issue involved. And in an interview with CVN over how he won a nearly $5 million verdict for a woman injured by a security gate, Searcy Denney’s Matthew Schwencke detailed how his argument on common sense played a critical role in his case.
Lourdes LaTour suffered a broken arm when a security gate arm struck her as she was bicycling out of a South Florida subdivision. The injury required multiple surgeries and left her with permanent nerve damage.
LaTour and her husband, Edward, claimed the gate arm was malfunctioning and that Miami-Dade County, which was responsible for the roadway entering and leaving the subdivision, was responsible. The County, for its part, claimed that signage on the gate and in the area warned that it should only be used for automotive traffic.
At trial, Schwencke argued it was unreasonable to expect a cyclist to be able to read the signage, given its size and placement.
“And the suggestion that the little writing that’s on the gate arm that moves, and opened for [the LaTours], was sufficient to put them on warning of that danger belies your common sense,” Schwencke told jurors in closings. “What is [LaTour] supposed to do?”
In an in-depth interview on the trial, Schwencke said he decided on using a common sense argument as opposed to arguments that might center on more complex issues, such as whether LaTour’s self-propelled, electric bicycle was actually an “automotive vehicle.”
“Do I really want to get into ‘What’s the definition of automotive?’” Schwencke said he asked himself. “Instead of going that hyper-technical route, is there really anything here that would have warned a bicyclist not to go through?”
Schwencke said appealing to common sense can be particularly effective in premises liability cases like this one, where warnings and a jury’s understanding of signage plays a key role.
“Most [of those jurors] had ridden bicycles. Even if they hadn’t ridden bicycles, they ride in cars, they drive in cars. They get signage. They understand it,” Schwencke said. “[The county] wanted to say well, you should have seen, this, this, and this. And the jury didn’t buy it, and they shouldn’t have.”
The appeal to common sense worked, with jurors awarding $4.915 million to the LaTours, which exceeded the $1.5 million to $3.5 million range of damages Schwencke suggested in closings. Moreover, jurors apportioned no fault to LaTour, and cleared a co-defendant private security company, while placing 100 percent of the fault on the county.
That discussion on appeals to common sense is just a portion of this episode of CVN's “Inside the Trial,” a deep-dive with Schwencke on how he won that verdict. In the 45-minute interview, featuring clips from the trial, Schwencke discusses:
* The importance of expert witness presentation.
* Preparing a case against a state actor.
* Being creative in using demonstratives.
* Effectively telling a damages story.
* Blunting comparative fault arguments.
And more. It's valuable insight into how a leading trial attorney wins a major verdict.
The full interview is available to CVN Video Archive subscribers here as part of our full video library.
You can watch the full trial here.
Not a subscriber?
Learn how you can access an unrivaled trial video library featuring the nation’s top attorneys.
Email Arlin Crisco at acrisco@cvn.com.
