Each Pittsburgh lawyer in our litigation section handles cases on both the plaintiff and defense side. To date, we’ve written at length about bringing claims on the plaintiff side of litigation: overcoming the limited tort defense, bringing a claim as an injured pedestrian, or filing suit for a bike injury.
But what about the defense of a civil action for compensation? Can a defendant sued for money ever win?
The answer is yes.. and it happens often.
Burden of Proof
Defendants not only can win, they must win, if the Plaintiff fails to proffer a preponderance of credible evidence to meet her burden of proof. In fact, the Defendant has no duty whatsoever to disprove the Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, the burden to prove liability — and resulting harm — falls squarely on the Plaintiff. This is per the standard jury instruction in both state and federal court.
For example, in a breach of contract case — including building construction or credit card debt — the plaintiff must prove the meeting-of-the-minds and agreement. The defendant has no duty to disprove a contract. Moreover, in a limited tort case, the Plaintiff must prove that her injuries are sufficiently serious — or fit within an exception to limited tort — to overcome the limited tort barrier.
Limited Liability Among Multiple Defendants
In a negligence action, where there are multiple Defendants potentially responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries, each is liable for only his portion of harm he created. This is pursuant to the “Fair Share Act” of Pennsylvania. So, if a jury awards the Plaintiff $100,000, and finds Defendant A 45% at fault, and Defendant B 55% at fault, they each pay $45,000 and $55,000, respectively.
However, there may be limitations coming to the Fair Share Act, opening the door for a return to the former “joint and several” liability rule. (There, each defendant is responsible “jointly and severally” for the entirety of Plaintiff’s harm.)
In a breach of contract case, it’s very different. There’s no “Fair Share Act.” The parties can agree — in the contract — to be joint and several liability for any breach of the agreement. So, for example, if a husband and wife obtain a second mortgage on their home, each can agree with the lender to be “jointly and severally” liable for the entire unpaid debt. (A real case we defended).
Does the Defendant Ever Have the Burden of Proof?
The answer is yes.
It’s rarely a good strategy for the defense to sit back silently and hope the judge or jury will refuse to buy Plaintiff’s case. In all areas of law, there exist certain affirmative defenses. Here, the burden shifts to the Defendant, to prove such things as:
-
-
- Comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff – claiming, for example, that plaintiff was not looking where she was going in a fall case. Or, if she’s injured driving her car, perhaps she had speeding or distracted herself, contributing to the collision.
- Fraud or duress – these are defenses to a breach of contract claim.
- Statute of limitations – this is a defense to all civil claims in Pennsylvania (four years for breach of contract, two years for negligence).
-
For these defenses, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer a preponderance of credible evidence.
Shifting Burdens of Proof
In fact, the burden of proof can shift several times in one case. The statute of limitations (SOL) is a great example. There, once Defendant shows that the Plaintiff’s case had been filed too late, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to prove an exception to the SOL, such as:
-
-
- Did the Defendant deceive the Plaintiff about whether she had been injured? For example, did a doctor say the surgery had “gone well,” despite the patient’s complaints of pain months later, from the surgeon having left his forceps inside of the Plaintiff? (This is a real case we handled.)
- The Discovery Rule. Was the breach of contract not reasonably discoverable? For example, did a contractor cause damage to a pipe within your wall of a new $750,000 home? Did water collect invisibly within the wall, and make the occupant of the home deathly sick from mold years later? (Another one of our cases).
-
Great Counties to Win a Defense Verdict
Some counties in PA are more friendly to the defense. For example, traditionally, Counties in Western Pennsylvania — such as Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland — have been defense oriented. Here, jurors tend to be the children or grandchildren of steel or coal workers. The thought expressed at many such dinner tables is: “This is a company town. You make your money at the mill, not in a courtroom. We don’t sue. Got that? Now pass the potatoes, dear.”
Thus, even years after most Western PA mills have closed, many jurors will hesitate to award the Plaintiff anything for her injuries, absent a significant claim for lost wages from the injury. Even then, some jurors have seen too many lawyer TV commercials and billboards to the point of never wanting to award money to the plaintiff or her “TV attorney.”
But there are some exceptions.
When A Defendant Should Never Take a Case to Verdict
There are some fact patterns where the risk of massive verdict is simply too high, purely for emotional reasons. There, even when the case sounds logically impossible to prove, the potential exists for a massive seven figure or eight figure verdict.
For example, perhaps a doctor did almost nothing wrong, but the patient suffered a long and painful death. Or, perhaps the owner of a set of stairs had made sure the area was well lit. Only, the Plaintiff found an expert to measure the amount of light and say it was “slightly off” from acceptable standards. This, allegedly, caused the Plaintiff’s death from a fall injury on the steps (an actual case we defended).
Can We Win A Defense Verdict at Trial?
Our defense clients often ask us: can we win? The answer is yes. I often say: “I think I can win any case, but it’s your name on the verdict slip, not mine.” There are some cases where you never want your name on a verdict slip, where 12 jurors are alone with the blank verdict slip, in a room. They can return to the courtroom with any number they would like for you to pay, after hearing days of often highly emotional testimony.
Here are a couple instances where defense lawyers learned the hard way about when not to take a case to verdict.
Adult Horsing Around in Swimming Pool – Easy Defense Verdict?
A man in Vandergrift (conservative Westmoreland County) was injured when horsing around (allegedly) in a neighbor’s swimming pool. The injured adult (age 21) — claimed the property owner should not have allowed the five foot raft into the pool. He also claimed the owner failed to and/or should have had “warned” him of the danger of jumping on the raft.
Easy defense verdict, right? Not so fast.
Only, the plaintiff’s injuries were very serious: a spinal injury. His parents and brothers testified. The plaintiff requires around-the-clock care and help with nearly every aspect of his life. He’s had multiple surgeries, is confined to a wheelchair, and has limited use of his arms and is unable to perform most daily tasks without assistance.
Still a slam dunk?
Easy Defense Verdict?
After all, this was conservative Westmoreland County. This was where jurors are known to issue defense verdicts. Only, as reported, “Jurors found that Washington Township homeowners Robert and Laura O’Black were negligent and liable.”
The verdict? $19,000,000 — against a homeowner.
We “Try All of these” Dead Baby Cases
St. Paul insurance had a policy of taking to trial all cases where its insured, a birth center, allegedly caused the death of a newborn. However, as with cases involving a 20-something with spinal injuries, St. Paul learned a simple fact the hard way: there are some fact scenarios where no defendant would want his name on a verdict slip.
In one case, St. Paul insured a particular birth center, which was alleged to have caused the death of the plaintiff’s baby. The plaintiff demanded $300,000. St. Paul refused. Following emotional testimony — where liability was questionable — the verdict was $7,196,238. There, the birth center sued (and won) against St. Paul. This was for “bad faith,” for needlessly exposing the birth center to the aggravation of suit. Also claimed were damages to the birth center’s reputation, for making it falsely appear it avoids responsibility for its actions.
Contact Us Today!
Each Pittsburgh lawyer at our firm is here to assist with any civil litigation matter.
412.342.0992
