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.
A Georgia child suffered severe injuries to his leg when he was run over by an Amazon delivery van in 2022. The case, against Amazon Logistics and its local delivery service provider, was one of the first in the country to go to trial over Amazon’s potential liability for the actions of its delivery partners. Jurors ultimately awarded $16.2 million in the case, finding Amazon 85% liable on a negligent training claim and the delivery partner 10% liable based on the negligence of the van driver. Importantly, however, the jury found Amazon exercised such control over the delivery partner that it was also liable for the driver’s share of fault as an employer.
As part of a 90-plus minute deep dive into the trial, Goldberg and Fried discussed how they framed the case as a failure of Amazon’s delivery system, placing the driver in a nearly impossible situation.
During the trial's closings, for example, Goldberg reminded jurors of evidence that the driver was placed in a position where he had made more than 180 delivery stops during his shift, despite receiving little training, going without a break for six hours, and running late that day.
“This system is flawed,” Goldberg told jurors. “The system they set up is to put young, inexperienced drivers out there, and make them try to do the impossible, while they’re hungry, tired, running late, trying to make as many deliveries as they possibly can…. That system was always doomed to fail.”
In the discussion on the trial, Fried said the system-failure argument is powerful, in part, because it avoids vilifying a potentially sympathetic defendant employee, which may alienate jurors.
“Some drivers are bad guys. Many, many are not,” Fried said. “And in this case, if we had tried to make this young man into anything other than kind of a victim of the system, it would have been a big mistake.”
Goldberg added that the system-failure theme even guided the pair's approach to questioning the driver and delivery partner's owner. “We were always concentrating on letting the story be told and not beating up the driver, but pointing out that what the driver did was a mistake.”
“If the system is really the problem, then you don’t need to vilify the driver,” Fried added.
The discussion on system-failure arguments is part of a deep-dive into the two attorneys’ approach to the trial and the techniques they used to win the headline-making verdict. During their discussion, supported by CVN video of the trial, they cover:
- How they proved Amazon’s control over the delivery service provider.
- Keys to cross-examining a sympathetic defense witness.
- Best practices for questioning expert witnesses.
- How to frame a damages request.
And much more. For a limited time, you can watch this full, in-depth video FREE. Click the link below to learn how you can watch the full discussion between two of the nation’s top trial lawyers.
Email Arlin Crisco at acrisco@cvn.com.
Related information
Learn how to watch the full discussion FREE.
Watch the full trial on demand and gavel to gavel.
Not a subscriber?
Learn how you can access an unrivaled trial video library.
