What turns an ordinary premises case into a $2.7 million verdict? Strategy.

When a 68-year-old woman tripped over a fallen curbside sign outside Target, Vern Ready didn’t just argue negligence — he built a case around corporate decision-making. Discovery revealed no wind-resistance policy, no inspection protocol, and no meaningful response to employee reports about falling signs. That allowed him to frame the case as “corporation versus customer” — and when employees testified, “corporation versus employee.”

In this episode of Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection with host Keith Fuicelli, Vern breaks down the tactical decisions behind the verdict: saving his cross of the defense doctor for trial, telling the medical story through the client’s lived experience instead of clinical jargon, using a simple ELMO instead of flashy demonstratives, and positioning damages after a $500,000 pre-suit offer.

The jury asked for a calculator — and returned $2.7 million.

A masterclass in framing, restraint, and trusting the jury to connect the dots.

Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers

☑️ Vern Ready | LinkedIn

☑️ Ready Law on Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube

☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers Website

☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Snapshot

1. Vern's client, a 68-year-old woman, tripped over a fallen portable curbside sign outside a Target, finished her shopping trip, and ultimately required two surgeries for ulnar nerve damage in her right hand.
2. Vern framed the case as "corporation versus customer" and “corporation versus employee” when Target's own employees testified that the company provided no guidance about wind resistance, sign maintenance, or safety procedures.
3. Discovery revealed that nobody at Target had checked the manufacturer's wind resistance specifications for the signs, no policy existed for bringing them in during wind, and nobody responded to internal reports about falling signs.
4. Rather than deposing the defense doctor, Vern saved his ammunition for trial, where he caught the doctor mid-testimony reading only half a sentence from a second-opinion record that actually supported his client's future surgical needs.
5. In opening, Vern told the medical story from the patient's perspective — not through clinical terminology — by asking, "What makes a person agree to have surgery to try to fix something?"
6. Instead of flip charts, Vern used an ELMO when writing – “just like an overhead projector.” The technique landed well with jurors, he says.
7. The jury asked for a calculator during deliberations and ultimately awarded $2.7 million — more than five times the $500,000 pre-suit offer that Target had made.

The information contained in this podcast is not intended to be taken as legal advice. The information provided by Fuicelli & Lee is intended to provide general information regarding comprehensive injury and accident attorney services for clients in the state of Colorado.