))
Ross Ziev – $350,000 in Slip-and-Fall that Unfolded Like a Murder Mystery
Manage episode 449765934 series 3495461
内容由Keith Fuicelli, Fuicelli & Lee and Keith Fuicelli提供。所有播客内容（包括剧集、图形和播客描述）均由 Keith Fuicelli, Fuicelli & Lee and Keith Fuicelli 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品，您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal。
Jurors listened, wide-eyed, as Ross Ziev presented his case against King Sooper Grocery Store. His client was injured in a slip-and-fall, but they may as well have been watching a murder mystery as a poor-quality video revealed “who-dun-it.”
“You could see in the jury’s eyes – they were trying to figure out what caused this as well,” Ross recalls in this case break-down with host Keith Fuicelli. They ultimately awarded $350,000 to his client for pain and suffering and physical impairment.
The store’s video proved to be pivotal evidence, and Ross details his strategy for when and how he presented it. He also walks through important steps that PI plaintiffs’ lawyers should take in such cases, starting with claims notes, incident reports, and video. And he offers advice for how to compel an obstructionist defense to disclose vital information. As for who caused his client’s fall… tune in to find out!
Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers
☑️ Legal Help in Colorado I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook
☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
Episode Snapshot
- Ross’ path from his native Dallas to law school at the University of Denver to launching his own firm in 2019.
- Background of Ross’ case on behalf of a woman who slipped and fell in the aisle of a King Soopers Grocery Store.
- Ross filed a formal settlement demand, but his experience has taught him that adjusters try to low-ball the plaintiff’s lawyer.
- Ross’ questioning of the assistant manager revealed that the store cleaned up the spill before any photos of it were taken.
- The defense went to trial assuming that a random customer caused the spill. Ross’ team reviewed store video that showed the real source.
- Ross’ theory at voir dire: damages and physical impairment and whether jurors would award those types of damages.
- How Ross overcame defense objections to some testimony about the store’s failure to investigate the spill.
- Why Ross advises plaintiffs’ lawyers to review disclosure and discovery with “an eye for deficiencies.”
The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.
21集单集
分享
