Brown v. Global Solutions

Facts of the Case

The defendant, Global Solutions, was a small, family-owned staffing company that provided workers and transport from Philadelphia to a potato chip factory in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The workers were individuals who had faced hardships and relied on the company for transport to and from work.

• The Incident: In October 2019, the driver, who was one of the owners’ uncles, was driving a van carrying about 10 passengers during a torrential downpour. Despite a history of speeding and driving incidents, the driver was speeding, drove right off the road, hit a berm, and caused the van to barrel roll in the air, ejecting multiple passengers. Multiple people died, and others were injured.
• The Negligence: The driver, Gong Thatch, should never have been hired or retained. He had numerous guilty pleas for driving-related summary offenses before being hired, and a history of speeding and scaring passengers that was reported to the company after he started driving. The company never disciplined or investigated him. The driver did not show up for trial, having left the country for Vietnam.

Theories of Liability

The case was tried against the staffing company, Global Solutions, and the driver. The plaintiffs alleged that the company was negligent in hiring and supervising the driver, who was driving carelessly, as proven by:

• Accident Reconstruction: Testimony showed the driver was speeding at 62 mph in a 55 mph zone. The defense argued the van hydroplaned, but the plaintiffs’ expert countered that hydroplaning would have required the van to be traveling 84 mph, or the loss of control was due to the driver’s negligence.
• Eyewitness Testimony: An eyewitness described the driver speeding past him and then slowly veering off the road. The witness was traumatized after being the first person on the scene and seeing bodies thrown from the van.
• Negligent Hiring: A liability expert testified that the staffing company should not have hired the driver.

Strategic Decisions and Hurdles

The case was a must-try due to the staffing company’s refusal to settle and the insurer’s attempt to deny coverage based on a “grotesquely unfair” auto exclusion buried in the policy. The company had also filed for bankruptcy, forcing a motion to lift the stay in bankruptcy court.

The team employed several highly unusual strategies to overcome difficult damages issues:

• No Economic Damages: The plaintiffs chose not to present expert testimony on economic damages to prevent the defense from bringing in “thorny issues” like the clients’ criminal backgrounds, mental health history, job instability, or homelessness. This avoided anchoring the jury to a lower economic damage number.
• Plaintiff Testimony: Two of the three plaintiffs did not testify.
  • One woman, who was 70 years old and only spoke Cambodian, was not called to avoid the risk of language barriers being twisted into a lack of credibility or creating a distraction for the jury.
  • The other plaintiff, whose mother had died from crash-related injuries, was going through an acute mental health crisis and was excused from taking the stand.
  • The third plaintiff had died instantly, and the pathologist testified he was only aware for about two seconds of fright. His mother testified only about her relationship with her son and what he meant to her.
• Trial Speed and Transcripts: The case, involving multiple plaintiffs and catastrophic injuries, was put on in a remarkably efficient day and a half. This speed was aided by the use of video depositions for two experts. Attorney Bosworth also utilized the daily trial transcripts to catch the defense lawyer lying about the driver’s “safe driving history,” leading the judge to allow the admission of the driver’s prior incidents.

The Closing Argument

The defense’s primary strategy was “distract and downplay,” focusing on irrelevant details like whether the van rolled clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Tom Bosworth hammered this point in closing by dismissing the defense’s “three D’s”. To address damages without suggesting a specific number, he pushed the line by telling the jury they were confident that based on the severity of the harm, the verdict “better be plenty of commas and there better be plenty of zeroes”.

The Verdict

After approximately three hours of deliberation, the eight-person jury returned a total verdict of $15 million.

The awards were apportioned as follows:

• $6 million to the family of the woman who died a year and a half after the crash.
• $5 million to the mother of the gentleman who died instantly in the crash.
• $4 million to Ms. D, the client who did not testify and was sitting in the back of the courtroom with her interpreter.