9/8/2019

1

REPTILE ‐ REVISITED AND REVERSED

JUDGE SHARON SOORHOLTZ GREERJOHN GRAY &

RYLAND DEINERT 

• WHAT IT IS.

• STEPS TO COMBAT THE REPTILE.

• USING YOUR OWN REPTILE.

9/8/2019

2

Reptile theory

• The brain senses danger and goes into survival mode to protect the community.

• Jurors are guardians of the community.

• Safety rule + danger = reptile.

• Vocabulary of a reptile:  safety rules, standards, danger, unnecessary risk, 100% safe, needlessly endanger.  

• Petition is your first clue you are in a swamp.

9/8/2019

3

• Reptile plaintiffs are looking to create a new community “rule” or “standard.”

• It is essential that you and your witnesses do not play into that theme.

• Address those efforts in your Answer to redefine the rules of the case.

9/8/2019

4

• 100% safety rule is not a standard in Iowa.

• Reasonable person with reasonable behavior is the standard of care.

• Courts are starting to shut this effort down.

9/8/2019

5

• Discovery should be used to elicit all theories of negligence and the facts supporting those theories.

• Force specific expert disclosures from plaintiff’s counsel so you can rebut any safety theory that elevates the reasonable person standard or actual industry standard.

9/8/2019

6

9/8/2019

7

• Deposition preparation is critical to defeat the Reptile plan.

• It will take time to prepare witnesses to avoid falling into the trap.  

Deposition Rules

• Fight repetition with repetition.

• Never say: we did everything we could ‐we tried our hardest, etc.

• Phase 3‐5 seconds before answering and listen to all of the question.

9/8/2019

8

• Do not say yes to these questions:

• Always put safety first ‐ must create the safest workplace for employees ‐ safety comes before profit ‐ must have the best training to be safe

• If you say YES ‐ you have created a new standard.

• Reasonable responses to reptile safety questions are:

• Depends on all factors.

• Every circumstance is different.

• That is now how it works in the industry.

• It is one of many factors to consider.

9/8/2019

9

• Good words:

• Reasonable.  Depends.  Appropriate.  Not possible in every case.

• Use your words with safety questions.  “I would expect we would act reasonable given the circumstances.”

• Bad words:

• Always.  Safety.  Rules. Risk. Danger. Duty. Never.

• Ensure.  Guarantee.  Must.  All.  Needless. Harms.

9/8/2019

10

• Beware of company websites, labels or handbooks that attempt to elevate standards of care.

• Prep your witnesses to not agree to those statements without qualification.

9/8/2019

11

• Here are some sample defendant depositions with Reptile experts ‐ listen to the words!

9/8/2019

12

Here are some Reptile trial tricks

• Anchoring the damages.  Commitment to $$$.

• Community safety

• This is Plaintiff’s jury.  Her only shot.

• “Brutal Honesty.

• “Don’t be cheap.”

• Veiled “Golden Rule” attack ‐ we have to protect the community.

• Misrepresenting evidence.

• Defendant has not paid a penny towards Plaintiff’s bills.

• Everything I have said is 100% true.

9/8/2019

13

• Telling a jury to stand up for Plaintiff.

• Vouching for the truth of the “salt of the earth” witnesses.

• Urging jury to stand up and do something and say this has great value to the community.

• Attacking the attorney or Defendant as liars ‐social elite.

Critical Tools

• Motion in Limine with trial examples.

• View all exhibits of Plaintiff’s power point before opening.

• Have someone involved with you to watch the Reptile team.

9/8/2019

14

• HOW COURTS VIEW REPTILE TACTICS:

• Gilster v. Primebank

• Whittenburg v. Werner Enters.

• K.G. ex rel Gosch v. Sergeant Bluff‐Luton Sch Dist

• Mays v. C. Mac Chambers Co

• Bronner v. Reicks Farms 

• Delaney v. Bogs

• Conn v. Alfstad

• Rosenberger Enters. v. Ins. Serv. Corp of Iowa

Using Reptile Tactics to Defend.

• Personal responsibility theme.

• Repetition of REASONABLE.

• Music man theme on the Reptile show.

• Discuss Plaintiff’s tactics as a sales job and describe how anchoring works.

9/8/2019

15

• REVERSE REPTILE:

• Use with comparative fault cases:

• non‐compliance with medical directions

• misuse of product

• reckless or careless behavior

• non‐adherence to company policies

The technique

• Instinctively agree with safety questions

• Agree that safety is linked to danger

• Add case facts and get commitment to breaking the rules

• Admit that if rules were followed, no injury

9/8/2019

16

Questions???

 

1

Gilster v. Primebank, 747 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2014). In this case, the plaintiff sued her former manager and employer for sexual harassment and retaliation. During her rebuttal argument, plaintiff’s counsel told the jury she was sexually harassed by a professor during law school but did not stand up for herself. Id. at 1010. Counsel noted, “It takes great strength and fearlessness to make a complaint against your supervisor.” Id. She continued,

Given my calling as a civil rights lawyer, I am constantly amazed by the strength and courage that my clients have when facing their employers and supervisors, the people who hold all the power. It is my sincere hope that one day my daughter, my friends, my sisters will live in a community where they will not be silenced by fear. And you can ensure this happens with your verdict.

Id. She concluded, “[T]he power and responsibility that I’ve held on [the plaintiff’s] case for the last two years is now over, and I am particularly fortunate that I can give the power and responsibility for correcting injustices like those we have seen in this courtroom to somebody else. I give it to you.” Id.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded defendants were entitled to a new trial. The court noted, “Counsel made a deliberate strategic choice to make emotionally-charged comments at the end of rebuttal closing argument, when they would have the greatest emotional impact on the jury, and when opposing counsel would have no opportunity to respond.” Id. at 1011. Her actions were “plainly calculated to arouse [the jury’s] sympathy.” Id.

Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc., 561 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2009). In a personal-injury, motor-vehicle accident case between the plaintiff and a trucking company, plaintiff’s counsel spent over half of the closing argument asking the jury to imagine that the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff’s children and delivered it after plaintiff left the house the night of the accident. Counsel read this imaginary letter to the jury. The letter imagined what happened in the moments before the accident and made a number of disparaging comments about how the trucking company and its attorneys would attempt to avoid liability for the accident. These statements included: “Our drivers will ignore the law, and they will ignore our company procedures, and recklessly set a trap for your dad.”; “Our lawyers will spend whatever it takes to try to talk our way out of having to be accountable for what our inept trainer and our inexperienced driver did.”; “We will not mention the fact that your dad sacrificed greatly as a single father to take care of the give of you while you were growing up and then devoted years as a nighttime caregiver for your Granny Grace so she could live with honor and dignity prior to her death.” Id. at 1125–27. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that counsel’s arguments exceeded permissible limits in

 

2

two ways: by referring extensively to evidence not in the record and by making multiple abusive references to the opposing party and counsel.

K.G. ex rel Gosch v. Sergeant Bluff-Luton Cmty. Sch. Dist., 323 F.R.D. 611 (N.D. Iowa 2017). Parents of a seven-year-old child with autism brought a § 1983 action against the school district, special education teacher, and school principal after the teacher dragged the child across a room causing severe carpet burns. During closing arguments, defense counsel suggested that the plaintiffs were asking the jury to “send a message.” Id. at 614–15. The jury returned a defense verdict. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa concluded a new trial was not necessary because the remark amounted to a minor aberration made in passing.

Mays v. C. Mac Chambers Co., Inc., 490 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa 1992). During the trial in this case, defense counsel made nine references to one plaintiff’s prior lawsuits and litigiousness in violation of the district court’s limine ruling. The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that a new trial was not necessary because plaintiffs failed to show it was probable the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s statements.

Bronner v. Reicks Farms, Inc., No. 17–0137, 2018 WL 2731618 (Iowa Ct. App. June 6, 2018). During closing arguments in a stipulated-liability, motor-vehicle-accident case, the plaintiff’s attorney described the plaintiff and her family as “truth tellers, salt of the earth, good people, truth tellers.” Id. at *1. He also “told the jury its verdict will reflect what preventing this type of injury is worth to their community and asked the jury to stand up for [the plaintiff] and award her appropriate damages.” Id. In his rebuttal argument, plaintiff’s counsel accused defense counsel of lying and misleading the jury, called the defendant’s damages calculation “an insult,” suggested that defense counsel thought “maybe in this county, maybe we can get off cheap,” and “if they could give her zero and get away with it they would.” Id. at *2. Defense counsel objected to the last statement, which the court sustained. Id. Immediately afterward, plaintiff’s counsel continued, “If they could . . . give her a goose egg, do you think they would?” Id. Another sustained objection followed. Id. Then, counsel asked the jury to “[p]lease go back there and stand up for her. Somebody has gotta.” Id. In affirming the order for new trial, the court of appeals found counsel’s misconduct was “flagrant,” “severe and pervasive.” Id. at *6–7.

Delaney v. Bogs, No. 14–2150, 2015 WL 7075815 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015). This case arose after a fourteen-year-old boy sustained serious injuries in a school bus accident. During closing argument, plaintiffs’ counsel remarked multiple times that the jury verdict could “send a message.” Id. at *10. During rebuttal, counsel stated that the defendants “can pay experts more than they pay a 14-year-old young boy whose back they broke in two places,” pointed out

 

3

that no representative of the bus company appeared for trial, and told the jury it should “decide whether that is a proper way to defend themselves.” Id. at *10–11. Counsel continued, “You do have the power to make it right. . . . There is no shame in vindicating the value of an individual student at these levels (indicating). Anything much less than that Durham will declare a victory and go on to the next bus accident and not show.” Id. at *11. Defense counsel did not object during rebuttal. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants asked the court to set aside the verdict in part because it was a result of passion or prejudice based on counsel’s statements. The court of appeals concluded the statements did not require a new trial because “[a]lthough the use of [a ‘send a message’] phrase may invite some passion and should be avoided, the phrase was not used so frequently that we are able to conclude a different result would have been reached absent the use of the phrase.” Id. at *12.

Conn v. Alfstad, No. 10–1171, 2011 WL 1566005, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2011). During unreported closing arguments in a dog-bite case, defense counsel “analogized bringing a case like this . . . as going to the casino and hitting a jackpot” and noted that the amount of money plaintiffs sought “would change the lives of you and me or anybody in this courtroom.” Id. at *2. Defense counsel also told the jurors that “everyone around the state” and around “the world is watching them” decide a verdict. Id. The district court gave the jury a cautionary instruction and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs nevertheless moved for a new trial. The Iowa Court of Appeals determined the jackpot comment was a personal opinion about the case that was aimed at inflaming the passions of the jury. Id. at *5. The court found defense counsel’s life-changing sum comment “encouraged [the jurors] to decide damages based on their personal interest rather than on the evidence.” Id. at *4–5. The court found the final comment that the jurors were being watched “could reasonably intimidate jurors into thinking that their verdict will subject them to public disapproval.” Id. at *4–6. The court concluded plaintiff had suffered prejudice and was entitled to a new trial.

Rosenberger Enters., Inc. v. Ins. Serv. Corp. of Iowa, 541 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The court of appeals concluded that defendant was entitled to a new trial based in part on plaintiff’s counsel’s “melodramatic antics throughout final arguments,” which “attempted to play to the passions of the jury through religious imagery and interjection of his personal opinion as to the merits of the case.” Id. at 908.