How Steve Vartazarian's Crash Narrative Keyed $10.8M Verdict for Pedestrian

For plaintiff’s attorneys, a vivid, opening statement description of the incident underlying a personal injury claim is critical to pull a jury into the theme of the case and lay the foundation for a major verdict. At trial over a forklift crash that catastrophically injured a pedestrian’s legs, Steve Vartazarian masterfully combined a compelling account of the accident with his theory of the case, setting up an 8-figure win. 

James Cobb suffered severe leg injuries when a forklift driven by John Hill struck him. Vartazarian, of The Vartazarian Law Firm, claimed Hill was negligent in failing to notice Cobb along a crosswalk, while the defense argued Cobb should have been more attentive to his surroundings. 

In openings, Vartazarian mixed accident scene photos with diagrams and a computer-animated crash reconstruction to walk jurors through each moment of the accident. 

Vartazarian begins with a diagram showing a birds-eye view of the collision, supporting it with a general outline of what he says caused the crash. “As Mr. Hill went into the pedestrian crosswalk,” Vartazarian says, tracing the forklift’s path with his finger, “Mr. Cobb just happened to be in a blind spot, or Mr. Hill was looking at the loading dock, and he wasn’t paying attention. One of those two things.”  

Vartazarian seamlessly moves through ever-closer views of the accident, literally pulling jurors into the events that support his theory. Meanwhile, he reminds jurors that this reconstruction serves as the linchpin of plaintiff’s expert testimony, a key to the case. Using the same demonstratives the expert will rely upon prepares jurors for what the expert will detail later in the trial, while being far more compelling than simply highlighting the expert's conclusions. 

From the overhead diagrams, Vartazarian switches to a street-level animation showing the immediate aftermath of the collision. 

“When Mr. Hill heard Mr. Cobb… screaming from underneath the forklift, he panicked, realized that there was somebody under there and tried to get the forklift off of him,” Vartazarian said, before playing the animation. “That’s why you’ll see the forklift going back and forth.

“And also, you will see that these forks were lowered. He lowered them. I don’t know why, maybe he thought it would help somehow. But unfortunately they hit Mr. Cobb’s legs when he did that, as well.”

The description spotlights the post-crash chaos, while dovetailing powerfully with the animation and laying the groundwork for a substantial pain and suffering claim.  

Varatzarian goes on to describe how “good Samaritans” spent several minutes trying to pull Cobb from under the forklift before ultimately using a piece of lumber to jack the forklift up enough to rescue him. 

“Between the time he was under the forklift and [when] they were able to take him out, it was several minutes,” Vartazarian told jurors, narrating the scene playing out on the computer animation, “with the weight of the forklift crushing his legs.”  

Vartazarian’s compelling opening served as the cornerstone for a $10.8 million verdict.