Top Defense Verdict: Menera v. Country Coach Corp.

Two adults and an infant child were killed in an auto accident on Highway 101 in Northern California allegedly caused by a skid on hydraulic fluid leaking from a ruptured hose beneath a traveling mobile home ahead on the road. The problem for the defense: the mobile home's maker was out of business, so attorney Damien Morozumi and colleagues were left to represent the vehicle's retail seller and a company that had purchased assets from the bankrupt manufacturer, named on a theory of successor liability.

Another hurdle: the plaintiffs brought in powerhouse lawyers from Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP and other firms who had sophisticated audio video equipment and an emotional story to tell jurors. "They came on strong," Morozumi said. "I had to go and find all these people from 2006," when the allegedly at-fault mobile home was constructed.

In closing arguments, the plaintiffs' team played a tear-jerking song while showing a photo montage of the victims. One lawyer began reading a bogus letter said to be from the deceased father to his daughter, until Ronald F. Berestka of Stone & Associates APC objected.

Lompa	Ferrall

"They pulled every heartstring," Morozumi said. "And it was scary, because we were exposed way beyond all [insurance] policy limits." The plaintiffs sought up to $48 million per victim.

Emotion apart, the defense resorted to a thorough investigation to refute the plaintiffs' theory that the hydraulic fluid hose ruptured because it had been improperly installed at the factory, allegedly running below the vehicle's cross-member where it could rub against the roadway and break. The mobile home had been made in Oregon. "We went up there, painstakingly interviewed a lot of people, and found a former factory supervisor who knew exactly how the hose had been installed," Morozumi said.

The defense used the supervisor and photos to establish that if the hose had been improperly mounted, then it could not have blocked the application of spray-painted undercoating as it had done. The "shadow" of the hose on the underside of the chassis told the story. It had been mounted correctly where it could not have touched the road. The manufacturer was not liable. The judge issued a directed verdict in favor of the successor corporation and the jury found for the retail seller.

"That single issue was everything," Morozumi said.

— John Roemer