(Pictured Above from Left to Right, Following Thursday’s Verdict: Haggard Law’s Todd Michaels, Champion Legal’s Dan Karanikis, Client Nick Pastor, co-counsel Robert Solomon of Saban and Solomon, Haggard Law’s James Blecke)
Broward County Jury Blames Longtime Las Olas Hotspot for Shooting and Beating of Patron, Orders Business to Pay Victim Nearly $1.2 Million
Ft. Lauderdale, FL – Following a 9 day trial, a Broward County jury agreed that management of longtime Las Olas hotspot Mangos could have prevented the beating and shooting of a man if it had adequate security measures in place. The victim (plaintiff) Nicolas Pastor, was awarded $1.182 Million for the injuries he says altered the course of his life.
The incident occurred March 24, 2012. Pastor was alongside a couple of friends waiting for a table at Mangos in Ft. Lauderdale. The manager of Mangos told the police that night that Pastor was aggressively grabbed by a man inside the restaurant who began viciously beating him along with two other men.
March 24th, 2012 – The scene outside of Mangos Restaurant and Lounge following the beating and shooting of Nick Pastor.
“Mangos had no security and no security procedures to deal with this fight. According to their manager, their only concern was pushing their customer who had been attacked out into the street with his attackers,” says Todd Michaels of The Haggard Law Firm.
Michaels tried and built the case with co-counsel Robert Solomon of Saban and Solomon.
Once the fight was in the street, one of the assailants pulled out a pistol and shot Pastor. The then 32-year-old man was rushed to Broward General Hospital where doctors completed emergency lifesaving procedures including an exploratory laparotomy and a thoracotomy. During the trial, Michaels and Solomon made clear that six years later the attack on their client shattered his life-limiting his ability to work, to sleeping, and restricting his ability to play with his son.
Every trial lawyer understands the significance of creating and developing a strong, clear theme for their case at trial. The theme of your case initiates a tone towards your Case-in-Chief and if powerful enough, it will dictate which fork in the road, favorable or unfavorable to your client, the jury takes.
Opening Statements
Opening statement is the second opportunity the trial lawyer has to begin planting the seed of bias in favor of his or her client—seasoned and skilled trial lawyers understand voir dire is really the first opportunity. It is critical to communicate to the jury and ingrain within each member of the jury a persuasive and powerful theme. Why? Once your theme is etched into the minds of the jury, each juror will begin to look for evidence that supports that theme. If a particular piece of evidence contradicts that theme they will likely discard that piece of evidence or they may not associate as much credence with it as they would have had it fit with your theme. This is vital to the outcome of your case. The theme essentially summarizes your case for the jury. Whether it is a short phrase or one word, the theme should capture the case theory, tone and the area of focus for the jury. The theme should be simple and easy to understand. I can share with you a case example in a recent trial of The Haggard Law Firm—the case of Trinard Snell.
Our firm tried the negligent security case against a gas station owner and operator, which resulted in a $5.7 million dollar verdict on behalf of the deceased Plaintiff and his survivors. Understanding the importance of a clear theory and a memorable, persuasive theme, we began opening statement with our theme— inadequate security on a crime-ridden property.
The case theme was presented to the jury at the very beginning of opening statement, repeated throughout the entire opening statement and reiterated at the end. Why? A concept in psychology—primacy, and recency—tells us that order is important! The primacy effect is described as the ability of an individual to recall information better that was presented earlier rather than later. The recency effect is described as the ability of an individual to remember information presented most recently to them better than information that was presented earlier. When you combine the two, optimal information recollection is achieved. Therefore, at minimum, the jury must here your theme at the beginning and at the end of your presentation.
Haggard Law Firm trial lawyer and Managing Partner, Michael Haggard email MAH@HaggardLawFirm.com
Testimony and Evidence Presented
After your jury has been indoctrinated with the theme of your case through voir dire and opening statement, you must keep the jury on that same track during the presentation of the oral testimony and physical evidence. Depending on the length of the trial, the jury will hear days to weeks of testimony. It is their job to sort through the evidence presented and make a just decision at the end of the trial. After weeks of testimony, jurors often become overwhelmed with the volume of information and evidence presented. It is the trial lawyer’s job to organize this testimony and evidence presented to the jury in a manner that diminishes this information overload. I use the analogy of a train on a train track to best describe this concept. The theme is the locomotive. Your jury represents the passengers on the train. The trial lawyer must keep his or her passengers onboard throughout the entire trial until arriving at destination “Favorable Verdict.”
One way to ensure your train passengers are not disembarking is to reiterate your theme and theory of your case throughout each segment of the trial. Your theme should be clear, concise and easy to recognize. The theme is the lens through which your jury will view the case. It is imperative that the lens you provide to the jury is the correct diopter—representing a powerful and persuasive theme. An incorrect diopter will result in a hazy, unclear view of your case and perhaps an unfavorable verdict. Mock trials and jury focus groups are a great way to gauge the lens diopter your jury will need.
WE INVITE REFERRAL ATTORNEYS AND CO-COUNSEL TO CONTACT US AT INFO@HAGGARDLAWFIRM.COM or 305.446.5700
As simple as this may sound, many lawyers have a difficult time successfully implementing these techniques. Through our years of law school and demanding casework at our prosperous law firms, our legal minds are trained to analyze the complexities and minutiae of the law, creating sophisticated legal arguments for opposing counsel and the court. The basic techniques of persuasive communication are often neglected due to the lawyer’s engrossment with the complexities of the legal issues of their case and their own familiarity with legal terms and attitude of simplicity. For example, the trial attorney that uses the theme of “Negligent Actions” will be rudely surprised by the jurors’ varying definitions of negligence. Despite the lawyer’s familiarity with the term “negligence” and its rudimentary elements, it is not so easily nor correctly defined by the jury. Through juror focus groups and mock trials, the lawyer can clear out the fog and rework the case theme prior to trial. During the deliberations at mock trials, I often hear jurors begin an explanation with “Personally, I feel that…” or “To me, this means…” These phrases are indicative of “information gap-filling.” Jurors will pull from their personal experiences to fill in the gaps. Those gaps are either areas where the jury is confused or has simply forgotten the information presented. Regardless of the reason for the existence of the gap, the juror will instinctively try to fill that gap in order to make sense of the legal questions they are tasked with answering. This illustrates why trial lawyers cannot forget the basics and cannot neglect the importance of simplifying and effectively communicating those complex issues to the members of the jury. The skilled trial lawyer will be mindful of this. The skilled trial lawyer will have an engaging theme.
Miami Dade County, FL – A gunshot victim who had his kidney, portions of his intestines removed and his colon perforated settles a negligent security lawsuit against northwest Miami apartment complex for $3 million.
On May 3rd, 2014, Dennis Gore and his friend worked together cleaning one of their clients’ business’. After work, Dennis and his friend played flag football and then went to Dennis’ mother’s apartment at Suncoast Apartments (999 NE 167th Street). Dennis would ask his friend to take him to Walgreen’s to get an ace bandage because of a sore knee.
The two of them went downstairs to Dennis’s friend’s car in the parking lot when Dennis realized that he left his wallet upstairs. He told his friend to meet him around the other side off 10th avenue while Dennis went back upstairs to get his wallet. After retrieving his wallet, he took the stairs to a door led directly into the parking lot when his friend to pick him up.
A man standing at the bottom of those stairs simply said “hey”, which made Dennis turn around. The man was brandishing a gun. Dennis attempted to evade the stranger but was met by a second man who tried to grab him. After breaking free and attempting to exit through a doorway, bullets began to fly. He was shot 6 times. Dennis was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where he went into emergency surgery.
Haggard Law Trial Attorney Jason Brenner – CONTACT BRENNER – JRB@haggadlawfirm.com
Haggard Law Firm Trial attorney Jason Brenner and Douglas McCarron litigated the case. Brenner says while the apartment complex did have security in place, it was not sufficient considering the level of crime in the area. The claims made in the case were past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering. “May 3rd was the beginning of a nightmare that Mr. Gore will never wake up from and it may have been prevented if this apartment complex had fully committed to providing the level of security needed to protect residents and guests.”
Haggard Law Trial Attorney Douglas McCarron – CONTACT MCCARRON – DJM@haggardlawfirm.com
The Haggard Law Firm has an extensive history of litigating negligent security cases involving apartment complexes, hotels, motels, gas stations and other commercial businesses. Over the last ten years, Haggard Law Trial Attorneys have obtained more than $400 million in results for clients severely injured or the families of those killed due to a property owner or managers negligence.
CONTACT HAGGARD LAW FIRM 305.446.5700
VIDEO: What is the first step in a negligent security case??
The Haggard Law Firm has been recognized by TopVerdict for notable results in 2017. TopVerdict recognizes U.S. law firms and attorneys who have obtained one of the highest jury verdicts, settlements, court or arbitration awards in the Nation or an individual State, in a particular area of law, and year
The $12 million verdict obtained by Haggard Law in Machado v Waves of Hialeah was named by TopVerdict as the number one inadequate security (negligent security) verdict and third highest premises liability verdict in Florida in 2017. The negligent security, wrongful death case was litigated by our Christopher Marlowe, Jason Brenner, James Blecke and co-counsel Alexis Izquierdo, ESQ.
This is the second straight year Haggard Law has earned the #1 Inadequate Security verdict recognition. In 2016, Brenner and trial attorney Douglas McCarron were recognized for the $1.7 million verdict obtained in Navas V Regal Entertainment Group. That case involved injuries suffered by a Monica Navas after moviegoers trampled her while trying to frantically escape a theater after a suspicious person started a fight days after the Aurora Colorado movie theater mass shooting.
Christopher Marlowe and trial attorney Pedro Echarte were the litigators of the #3 ranked inadequate security case on the 2017 list. The pair delivered a $1 million result in Gilbert v. Cryptical Development LLC.
A recent issue of the VerdictSearch periodical named a $12 Million verdict earned by Haggard Law in a wrongful death, negligent security case as the “Featured Verdict” of the month.
Background of Case
A Miami Dade County jury awarded the parents of Yaimi Guevara Machado $12 million following a five-day trial that originated from a wrongful death negligent security lawsuit filed against the Chesapeake Motel.
On April 10, 2016, their daughter, 30-year-old Machado was locked out of her hotel room only wearing a bra and jeans when she asked the staff of the Hialeah motel for help . They refused. Moments later, police say, she was beaten to death by Ronald Lopez Andrade who has been charged with first-degree murder.
Machado’s family filed the lawsuit against the owners of the Chesapeake Motel because they believe its staff had several opportunities to prevent the tragedy. Along with not assisting Machado when she approached them, the hotel’s staff:
Allowed Andrade, who was not a hotel guest, to linger on the property
sold Andrade alcohol
fielded a request from the inebriated Andrade for help to find a prostitute
did not kick Andrade off property when he sought sexual favors from a housekeeper
Over the last decade, The Haggard Law Firm has handled hundreds of premises liability / negligent security cases, delivering more than $300 million in verdicts and settlement in that time.
To read the entire feature by VerdictSearch.com click here: http://verdictsearch.com/state/fl/
Media Coverage
The tragic and preventable crime and subsequent verdict was covered by media outlets across the area and internationally. The parents of Machado continue to hope the exposure of the case will help change motel and hotel security policies so no one else loses their loved one
Although each negligent security case may bring about different facts or require ingenuity with your strategy, there are certain elements of your case that remain constant. One of those elements is crime statistics. The importance of crime statistics in your case cannot be stated enough. Not only do these statistics help establish notice and foreseeability to the defendants, they are also a treasure trove of information.
With respect to notice and foreseeability, your crime statistics establish what the defendants “knew or should have known” prior to and at the time of subject incident. So what should you request? You begin by requesting the calls for service and all police reports for the subject property. This needs to be done in one request. From there, depending on your jurisdiction, you will order up to a mile radius for the calls for service. Once you receive each respective request, you must synthesize the data. For example, you will detail the violent and non-violent crimes and their frequency on the property. This provides a picture of what type of crime was going on at the property. It provides you with the ability to illustrate to the jury the level of crime occurring and can be used effectively to show that it is an improbability for a defendant to be unaware of the police being called to the property.
In this article, The Haggard Law Firm’s Jason Brenner discusses a variety of topics including why trial attorneys should always employ a philosophy that every case should be prepared to go to trial. He says it is a mindset that many trial attorneys don’t employ.
Brenner is part of the team that recently obtained a $12 million verdict in a wrongful death, negligent security case following a 5 day trial (click to learn more about the case). Click here to learn more about the case
The Truth I Never Knew about Direct and Cross-Examinations
Entering the legal field with the desire to become a trial attorney is a daunting endeavor. There is only one place where a young lawyer can establish himself or herself as a trial attorney—in the courtroom. Trial practice has almost become a misnomer in today’s world. The firm where I have been privileged to practice is made up of an endangered species of the trial attorney. I revel in the “war stories” about them trying a case on Monday and preparing for the next one on Friday. Nowadays, the majority of time spent in court is in motion practice.
The current status of trial practice creates an interesting conflict for young, aspiring attorneys in their attempt to develop trial skills. In the almost six years I have been practicing, I have been trial support on two civil jury trials and second chair on an additional two. The first trial in which I participated as second chair was a stroke of fortune and an eye-opening experience. Once I was in the courtroom in this role, I understood the purpose and importance of direct and cross-examination, but, most important, I understood the difference between direct and cross-examination in discovery and at trial. The primary focus of this article is to illustrate the principles of direct and cross-examination that have been taught to me.
On Monday The Haggard Law Firm hosted a media conference to discuss the recent $12 million verdict earned in the negligent security wrongful death case of Yaimi Guevara Machado. Joined by our brave clients, Machado’s parents and sister, our collective goal was to drive the message home to motel owners to make sure they are taking every necessary step to meet the security needs of your property to ensure the safety of your guests.
In April 2016, Guevara was killed shortly after asking the staff at the Chesapeake Motel in Hialeah Florida to help her after she was locked out of her room wearing only jeans and a bra. No help was given. Security video shows that Ronald Lopezandrade was also on the property that night. He was not a guest of the hotel but he was able to purchase alcohol, requested a prostitute, and made sexual advances on a hotel employee. Despite those red flags, he was never removed from the property. Eventually, the suspect met the victim, gained her trust, gave her his shirt, and walked her to the parking lot. They would disappear from view of the security camera. Police say Ronald Lopezandrade sexually assaulted Machado and then beat her to death.
Media Coverage
Every major TV affiliate and the two major newspapers in South Florida were among the news filed stories along with media outlets that covered (as of the date of this posting).
MEDIA CONFERENCE MONDAY 1:30PM- Security Video Provided
Local Family of Woman Beaten to Death During Sexual Assault Say Hotel Could Have Prevented Her Murder.
A Miami-Dade County Jury Agreed, Just Ordered Hotel to Pay Parents $12 Million.
Hialeah, FL – Late Friday a Miami Dade County jury awarded the parents of Yaimi Guevara Machado $12 million following a five day trial that originated from a wrongful death negligent security lawsuit filed against the Chesapeake Motel.
On April 10, 2016, the 30-year-old Machado was locked out of her hotel room only wearing a bra and jeans when she asked the staff of the Hialeah motel for help (video/audio available). They refused. Moments later, police say, she was beaten to death by Ronald Lopez Andrade who has been charged with first degree murder.
Machado’s family filed the lawsuit against the owners of the Chesapeake Motel because they believe its staff had several opportunities to prevent the tragedy. Along with not assisting Machado when she approached them, the hotel’s staff:
Allowed Andrade, who was not a hotel guest, to linger on the property
sold Andrade alcohol (video/audio available)
fielded a request from the inebriated Andrade for help to find a prostitute (video/audio available)
did not kick Andrade off property when he sought sexual favors from a housekeeper
Machado’s parents, Julia Machado and Rafael Guevara, hope their successful lawsuit sends a message to budget motels to follow the best practices in the lodging industry to provide the security that will help prevent tragedies like these from destroying another family.
The Haggard Law Firm’s Christopher Marlowe and Jason Brenner were joined by co-counsel, Alexis Izquierdo , in litigating this case.
Over the last decade The Haggard law Firm has handled hundreds of premises liability / negligent security cases, delivering more than $300 million in verdicts and settlement in that time.
