Garo Mardirossian Uses Jury Charge as Anchor to Build $35M Closing in Motorcycle Crash Case

The strongest cases can be undermined by jury confusion over instructions. Long blocks of text filled with legal terminology can befuddle jurors as they deliberate, particularly where multiple theories of liability are involved for different defendants. Walking jurors through complicated instructions, and using those instructions as an anchor about which to build your closing argument, can be both an effective rhetorical tool and help avoid juror confusion. Garo Mardirossian used that tactic to great success, winning a $35 million verdict for the loss of a former UCLA lineman’s leg in a motorcycle accident. 

Amir “Nick” Ekbatani lost his leg after being struck on his motorcycle by a taxi van at a Pacific Coast Highway intersection in Redondo Beach, California. The taxi driver, Mesfin Kinfu, allegedly failed to yield when making the turn. However, Ekbatani’s attorney, Mardirossian, argued that a gradual incline and the absence of a turn signal at the intersection also contributed to the crash, and that The California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, was responsible for failing to act on prior complaints about the intersection. 

Key to Caltrans liability was the question of whether the intersection was a dangerous condition, an issue to be considered without regard to Ekbatani or Kinfu’s driving. And, an issue over which the jury could easily become confused. 

During his closing, Mardirossian placed the instruction on a big screen monitor, adding photos from the case to highlight the charge and more closely tie the issue to Caltrans. For instance, Mardirossian read the definition of the term “dangerous condition” from the monitor then gestured to the photo of the intersection at issue placed in the corner of the screen next to the instruction. “We’re talking about a substantial risk of injury. We’re talking about a highway, PCH is a highway,” Mardirossian said. 

Then Mardirossian moved to the key point that could trip up the jury. In determining whether the highway was in a dangerous condition, and thus whether Caltrans was responsible, Mardirossian said the jury had to disregard whether the taxi driver—who allegedly failed to yield—acted with due care.  “This is difficult to do,” Mardirossian acknowledged after reading the key piece of the charge and pointing to each word for emphasis. “You’ve got to sort of remove yourself from the facts of this case in terms of Ekbatani and Kinfu’s conduct, and say… looking at this vicinity of this accident, the way the general public uses it, was there a dangerous condition?”

With that as emphasis, Mardirossian used the instruction as a jumping off point for the evidence he said supported a finding of liability against Caltrans. 

The tactic worked, with jurors apportioning 70% of responsibility to defendant Caltrans and only 30% to the defendant taxi driver in the $35 million verdict.