Jeffrey Tenthoff won a Philadelphia major jury trial on liability despite three independent witnesses supporting the Plaintiff’s version of the accident. Every aspect of the case, including which driver was on which road, was in dispute. The Plaintiff alleged that he was traveling southbound on Charles Street and entered its intersection with Passmore Street when he was T-boned in the driver door by the Defendant traveling westbound on Passmore Street. Passmore Street has a stop sign while Charles Street does not. Discovery revealed three independent witnesses, all of whom gave statements supporting the Plaintiff’s version and specifically that the Plaintiff was traveling on Charles Street without a stop sign. The Defendant, however, maintained that she was traveling northbound on Charles Street when the Plaintiff ran the stop sign while traveling westbound on Passmore Street directly into her path of travel, causing her to T-bone the Plaintiff. Photographs depicted an impact directly to the driver’s door with both side airbags deployed and the driver’s door window shattered. The plaintiff also presented two expert doctor trial video depositions as to the seriousness of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Nonetheless, at trial Mr. Tenthoff: pointed out the holes in Plaintiff’s fact witness’ testimony as well as a glaring inconsistency as to whether the Plaintiff was working as a pizza delivery man at the time of the accident; highlighted the several inconsistencies between the Plaintiff’s testimony and that of his own medical experts and treatment records; and effectively cross-examined the Plaintiff with his prior testimony to such an extent that the jury either believed his client despite the countervailing evidence or didn’t know who to believe or how the accident occurred. Either way, they were unanimous that the Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and returned a defense verdict as to liability.
