Lars Johnson Focuses on Mother's Love, Military Analogy to Win 7-Figure Verdict at Wrongful Death Trial

Arguing non-economic damages is one of the most important, yet often most difficult parts of a wrongful death case. At trial over a fatal fire allegedly caused by a defective television set, Lars Johnson focused on an elderly mother’s unconditional love for her child in a closing that led to a seven-figure jury verdict.

Lauren Humphrey died in a 2012 apartment fire that her mother, Shirley Oliver, claims was caused by a defective TV set distributed by defendant Oakwood Worldwide.

A key hurdle in the argument for damages was the fact that Oliver was 79 years old at trial and did not rely on her daughter for financial support, leaving the award to hinge on non-economic losses.

Additionally, Van Nuys, California, where the trial was held “is generally a tough venue for personal injury cases,” Johnson told CVN.

But, in his closing, Johnson focused on whose loses the jurors should keep in mind. “This is not Lauren Humphrey’s case. It’s not to compensate Lauren Humphrey. And it’s not about what Lauren Humphrey lost. She lost her life,” Johnson said. “What you’re determining is what has Shirley Oliver lost.”

The distinction was likely key because of another difficulty with the case: Humphrey, who had problems with a former roommate and used both prescription medication for pain and arguably drank in excess, including allegedly the night of the fire, may not have been the most sympathetic witness to jurors.

By focusing on Oliver’s claim, and a mother’s unconditional love, Johnson worked to overcome any issues jurors may have had with Humphrey herself. “With all the mistakes and problems and issues that Lauren had in her life at different times… her mother’s love is unfailing,” Johnson said, noting Oliver talked to her daughter up to an hour a day.

“The question is what has Shirley lost,” Johnson asked, noting Oliver was expected to live another 11 years, a time when she would be without her daughter’s voice. “You can’t pick up a phone and call anybody and have unconditional love.”

Johnson then addressed head-on the other questions he believed would play through jurors’ minds as they deliberated: including the fact that the money wouldn’t bring Humphrey back or that a large award may be more money than someone could spend in their lifetime. Those questions, Johnson told jurors, ran contrary to the jury instructions. And the result of considering those questions? “This whole thing gets upset and has to be thrown out because people were considering things they shouldn’t consider.” 

The statement is a powerful one, playing to a juror’s inherent desire to reach a proper verdict and follow court order.  “Again folks, no outside reasons on damages,” Johnson said.

Johnson followed that admonition by seeking to make jurors more comfortable with handing down a multi-million-dollar verdict and he used a military analogy do it. “When our military is out operating with multi-million-dollar, billion-dollar aircraft… if there’s any question about whether the pilot can survive if something goes wrong with the aircraft, they’re told… ‘Ditch the plane,’” Johnson said. “No one would ever question a pilot for doing that even though they’ve left behind something extremely expensive in terms of monetary value.

“And the reason for that is because we put a really high value on human life in our country.”

Johnson’s forceful damages argument led jurors to hand down a $3 million verdict, beating the $100,000 pre-trial settlement the defense offered.