Copyright © 2021 Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduced with Permission.
Because the victim of the Toledo car accident had elected to retain the services of an experienced attorney, they were able to navigate Toledo rear-end car accident depositions smoothly. However, far too many victims feel as though trial and depositions are not worth the compensation they could receive. Fortunately, there are attorneys who could help you better understand how compensation is just a small step toward holding negligent parties accountable.
Depositions are statements under oath. Attorneys from the other side get to ask questions. A victim’s attorney is allowed to be with them when the questions are asked under oath. It is a way for the different parties to evaluate the witness, to determine the likability and believability of a witness, to find out information, to find out the arguments and issues on the case, and to make determinations on whether or not to settle the case or to go to trial.
In the Toledo rear-end car accident case, three depositions took place before the eventual settlement. The client was one of the deposed witnesses.
The vicitm’s attorneys prepared the client for depositions by reviewing what the expectations were and the type of questions that were going to be asked. The client was injured in the accident and the executor and the secretary of the estate of their late spouse. In this case, two weeks before the deposition, attorneys prepared for the questions the client would be asked. The team sent the client’s responses to interrogatories and request for production of documents to the client. Attorneys sent them the copy of the police report, copies of all of the relevant medical records for the late spouse, and a summary of the client’s medical records and treatment. Then attorneys met with the client on two occasions, reviewing what type of questions the other side was going to ask.
The first time, attorneys gave the client an itemization of the type of questions that would be asked. When attorneys met the second time, they did a mock deposition in which one attorney pretended that they were the other legal representatives and asked the client the questions. When the client went into the deposition, the client knew what to expect and was prepared.
At the client’s deposition, the opposing counsel asked the client questions about their background, injury, the accident, their relationship with their late spouse, the spouse’s background, and the type of person that they were. The Toledo rear-end car accident depositions were exceptionally helpful because the client is an extremely nice, likable person. The client and their late spouse had an excellent marriage and were hard working. It helped prove to the other counsel that this was a case that they wanted to resolve because the jury would award the client a substantial sum of money due to their tragic circumstances.
In this case, the client’s attorneys did not depose the opposing party. The specific reason was the other side. The other defendant, in the case, was an over-the-road truck driver who had been fired as a result of this accident. The client, the police officer, was severely injured. The team got service of process on this defendant, but the other side claimed throughout the entire case that they could never find the wrongdoer they represented. This was a rare instance where they never found the defendant throughout the pendency of the case. The disadvantage was that the team was not able to ask the wrongdoer any questions. However, because of that, the other side knew that if the client’s case were to go to trial, they would not be seen in a favorable light by the jury.
In this case, the other side did the deposition through cross-examination. That means when it is a person’s client, the person could only ask a leading question. In the Toledo rear-end car accident depositions, they asked the leading questions of the client. It unfolded that they asked them about their background and the time they had served time in the military. The defense attorneys talked to them about their education, background, prior police service in Pennsylvania, and their prior service in Ohio.
One of the major issues, in this case, was that the client was in a small accident several weeks before the Toledo rear-end car accident and the other side was trying to argue that all of the injuries and need for surgery happened from this other small accident versus the more recent accident. This was a big issue in this case, and that was where the opposing counsel threw most of their efforts.
Useful information was gathered at this time, including that the client was a war hero and had an unblemished service record as a police officer both in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It also came out that the victim was married with three small children. Because of the outstanding moral character of the client, the defense relied mostly on disputing the cause of the client’s injuries. There was no need to ask additional questions to the client because of how favorable the client seemed in depositions.
Under Ohio law and Toledo jurisdiction, in the discovery phase during the deposition process, attorneys are allowed to make an unlimited amount of objections. Typically, the lawyer would state the objection and what the legal basis is for the objection. Unless it is something outrageous, a lawyer objects. The purpose of the objection is to preserve their right to argue, and that evidence should not be admissible at a trial. However, the lawyer instructs their client to answer the question anyway for the purpose of discovery.
In this case, two or three objections were made, but there was nothing objectionable. All the attorneys were responsible and did not do anything improper.
The team used parts of the depositions taken in this case as evidence that they then presented in the video demand package used for the mediation prior to mediation to give opposing counsel a demand for settlement. The other side used the evidence gathered in the deposition to try to evaluate the case.
When people talk about the stress of trial, they often refer to depositions as a source of stress. When victims are forced to address questions regarding their accidents, they may feel attacked or antagonized. Fortunately, attorneys are allowed to be present with their clients. Because of this, it is critical for victims of accidents seeking to file claims against wrongdoers to enlist the services of an attorney who places their needs first. If you were injured in a car accident and face depositions like the Toledo rear-end car accident depositions, you need to make sure that you have an attorney that matches your needs. Reach out today to inquire more about how an attorney could help.
Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC