Demetrio.htm 4/16/2001 - Trial Archivestrialarchives.org/pdfs/Closing Arguments - Child...Clickhere...

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Thomas A. Demetrio of 1

Thomas A. Demetrior\

Click here for Thomas A. Demetrio's Biography

FACTS

—8 year old child and mother were killed, andtheir 10yearold brother/son was leftpermanently brain-damaged, spastic andquadriplegic from a collision witha tractor-trailer

that had crossed the center line without slowing down or sounding its horn.

- This case was tried in Cook County, Illinois(1983)Rickerson v. Jeffries ($12 million verdicti

Back

file:/AD:\arguments\Demetrio.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Thomas A. Demetrio's Biography

Biography

Back

Back to Index

Click here to go to Thomas A. Demetrio's website(http://www.corboydemetrio.com)

Thomas A. Demetrio

Corboy & Demetrio, P.C.

33 North Dearborn Street, 21^ FloorChicago, IL 60602

Page 1 of 1

iiiTom grew up in a suburb north of Chicago. "My upbringing was typical ofthe50's-1 was

Beaver Cleaver." After graduating from theUniversity of Notre Dame and serving his country, Tomwent to law school for "a reason less than virtuous. I just couldnT fathom goingto work and being

like my dad ("Ward"), soa delay of three years made sense to me."

He is proudly identified with his mentor, partner and dear friend, Philip H. Corboy, with whomhe has worked since day one.

Tom has acquired over $100 million injury verdicts, including the largest personal injuryverdict everupheldby the Illinois Supreme Court.

Hisfirst verdict was $700.00. 'TSlot bad," he recalls. "Themedical bills were only $40.00. I

quickly grew passionate about protecting the rights ofindividuals. After 27 years, that passion is aliveand well."

The final argument Tom has submitted for this book resulted in a $12 million verdict. He hadrejected an $8 million offer. He explains, ofthat experience; "The night the verdict was rendered, Ihad dinner with Gerry Spence. At the end ofthe evening, he said to me, 'You're not happy you wontoday.' He could see Iwas incredulous. He said, 'You are dam happy you didn't lose.' For me, thatsummed up what we are really all about. It is not about winmng. We just don t want to lose.

Back

Back to Index

file://D:\biographies\Demetriobio.htm

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page I of26

Thomas A. Demetrio

Click here for Thomas A.Demetrio's Biography

Click here to go back

Back to Index

Rickerson v. Jeffries ($12 million verdict)

To search within this argument, press CTRL-F.

May itplease the Court, Mr. Rickerson, Mr. Smallwood, Mr. Tobin, members ofthe jury.

As you know, shortly after this trial started - the second day, in fact - the plaintiffs, throughme, dismissed Mr. Mickey from this lawsuit on a voluntarily basis. As you also know, this isalawsuit for money damages to compensate David Rickerson and Steven Rickerson, based upon thelaw and the evidence.

I believe the Court will instruct you that byoperation of law, the conduct ofan agent in thisparticular case is in fact the conduct ofthe defendant corporation. So when we talk about thedefendant today, it is H. J. Jeffnes Truck Lines Incorporated, and no one else. This is not a lawsuitfor sympathy. As you know, this is not a lawsuit for penalizing anyone. This is a lawsuit for moneydamages.

I believe the Court will also instruct you that although the American National Bank is theguardian ofSteven Rickerson and Dave Rickerson is the Administrator ofthe Estates ofhis wife andhis son, Scott. The real parties in interest in this lawsuit are, and the issues that you have to determinepertain to, Steven Rickerson and his father, David.

As temporary officers ofthe court, it is now your solemn function, pursuant to the oath youtook to listen toour comments, to review the evidence inyour own minds, to listen to the law thatJudge Lemer will shortly give to you, to apply that law to the evidence that you heard in thiscourtroom and finally come up with a result that is both fair and just and certainly reasonablepursuant to the law.

Your verdicts - and there will be three of them - should be reached pursuant to the law andthe evidence and nothing else. Sympathy is not a factor in this lawsuit. Personalities, speculationsplay no role. Matters that you have read in the newspaper or seen on TV or heard about from fnendsshould play no role in the deliberations that you are about to undertake.

file://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injuryand Wrongful Death CD - Rickersonv. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 2 of 26

The three verdicts that you render in this case today should be based solely upon the evidence,

the law and, I believe the Court will instruct you, the experiences and observations that you have

made throughout life. You are not supposed to leave those at home, but you can apply them to the law

and the evidence.

Your privilege is a unique one in this particular matter because each of you, collectively

through your three verdicts, must determine the value of life and you must determinethe value that is

placed on the dignity and the qualityof life. You may be asking yourselves, well, why do we, as a

jury, have to determine these things. I thinkit goes back to when the MagnaCarta was signedalmost

800 yearsago when, in the English speaking countries, thejury systemhad its beginnings.

People from different nationalities, backgrounds, likes, dislikes gather together as a unit to

determine controversies between litigants, just like the ones here in this courtroomand come up with

results that have been proven over time to be fair, reasonable and indeedjust.

You will recall, I think, that when we were going through the jury selection process, I took

great pains to make sure thatI asked each and every oneof you, will you follow the law? And, at thattimeI wasnot suggesting that you may notwantto follow the law. But,on behalfof myclients, andI'm sure on behalfof the defendant in this lawsuit, we wanted twelve fair, impartial jurors who would

listen to theevidence, payclose attention to that evidence and in an intelligent fashion apply it to thelaw that Judge Lemer will eventually give you. Bach of you promised that you would.

In addition to that, each of you took anoaththatyouwould follow the law, regardless ofwhere that law might lead you.

In this particular lawsuit, I believe the Court will instruct you that the plaintiffhas the burdenofproof. Inthis particular case, that burden ofproof isproving that the negligent conduct, theadmitted negligent conduct, of the defendant caused the deaths ofCarol and Scott Rickerson andresulted in the injuries that have occurred to Steven Rickerson. The burden ofproofin this particularcase simply means what is more probably true than not true. The scales ofjustice have tojust tip everso slightly.

But, that is not a real bigproblem in this case because I believe the Court will also instructyou that the defendant has admitted its negligence and its responsibility; its liability for the deaths ofCarol and Scott and the injuries toSteven. The defendant denies, however, the damages, the extentof damages claimed. So, the issues of reasonableness and fairness are in your hands.

I suggest that the verdict you render, the three verdicts, must indeed be fair and reasonable


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries -Thomas A. Demetrio Page 3of26

pursuant to the law and that fair and reasonable in this case does not mean cheap. Itdoes not meanbargain basement. Itdoes not mean economical. Itdoes not mean skimpy. And, indeed, itdoes notmean risky. Rather, fair and reasonable in this particular case means just and decent and fullcompensation for the deaths ofCarol, Scott and the economic and non-economic damages that wewill talk about that have been incurred by Steven Rickerson.

What1would like to firstdiscuss, beforewe start talkingabout the damages themselves, is a

red herring that was interjected into this lawsuit very late in the case. How do we mitigate ourdamages, someone thought. And, then someone got the bright idea, let's try to present evidence thatshows we hurt Steven Rickerson to such an extentthathe is goingto be deadwithin ten years.

So, to accomplish that, on October 27*^, Dr. Jackson was contacted, atape was sent to him.He reviewed it and remarkably stated in a report dated October 31,1983 that Steven Rickerson was ina true coma and that he. Dr. Jackson, would besurprised ifSteven Rickerson lived another decade.

In his opening statement, the legal representative for the defendant in this lawsuit stated toyou that Dr. Jackson was nationally known. 1suggest that he is known nationally only to theinsurance industry for which he supplies ^Tiow to" seminars and he is known nationally only to thosepeople who try to present evidence to establish that someone's life expectancy has been diminished.His sole function was to keep down or mitigate damages in this lawsuit. And, 1had to address thatissue because it was raised. Although late inthe ballgame, it was indeed raised.

Dr. Jackson is the guy that goes around first class and sees about 150 patients or plaintiffs ayear. He has not bothered to become Board Certified, even though he's had that opportunity since1953. And, even though he tells the insurance industry in person and in a transcript that was put intothe Insurance Council Journal —although he did not have time to edit it—even though he told thosepeople medicine has created for all of us the problem —mind you, the problem —that these peoplewho havemassive braindamage and injuries no longer die.

And, even though he tells these insurance that you and 1have to live with the consequence-imagine, have to live with the consequence—of brain injured people now surviving, he walked intothis solemn court of law and stated under oath hewould besurprised if Steven Rickerson lived adecade. His reason? He stated that he reached his reason by taking his hand and plucking out oftheair the cause of respiratory failure. Heplucked it out of the air.

Consider the fairness and the decency of this red herring that came late in the ballgame inlight of the source, number one, and in light of the statement that he made where he agreed that it sstupid for him to get involved in acase late and that ifhe does, he will bag you for it.

file;//D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 4 of26

But, more importantly, I believe the Court will instruct you that you collectively —individually and then collectively —are thesole judges of the credibility of thewitnesses that testifiedin this courtroom. And, thatyoumaytake into account theiropportunity and theirability to observe,their memory, their manner while testifying and the reasonableness of their testimony considered inlightof all theothertestimony on a particular issue.

So,what was theotherevidence thatwas presented for your edification on thisparticular

issue? From his treating registered nurse: Steven ismedically stable. There is nothing wrong withSteven other than his head injury. His one bout with pneumonia cleared within two weeks. Hehasnot had any other respiratory problems. He has never had any urinary tract problems. His skin isperfect.

From his treating. Board Certified pediatrician who teaches medical students atHarvard; theone bout with pneumonia cleared with an antibiotic which isroutinely given to all children. Hisrespiratory system isexcellent. His urinary tract system is excellent. His bowel movements areexcellent. Hisnutritional status is excellent. His skinis excellent. His heart is strong. He is in

excellent medical health. He willhavea normal lifeexpectancy if given proper medical careand

Steven should live at home.

From his former treating. Board Certified orthopedic surgeon and physiatrist. Dr. Flannigan,who teaches Northwestern medical students: Steven should live at home. Steven will have a normallife expectancy. Steven needs 24-hour licensed practical nursing care with registered nursesupervision. Steven should have physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and languagetherapy. Seizures will not further destroy his brain and they are not serious and not life threateningand they will not kill him. Responsible care with the abilities we have today will prevent Stevenfrom dying from pneumonia.

From his former treating. Board Certified physiatrist. Dr. Philip who specializes in pediatricphysiatry, who teaches Northwestern medical students and is presently working on aprofessionalpaper entitled "Recovery Following Severe Head Injury In Children": He said Steven should live athome with his father. Steven will live a normal life expectancy if given proper medical care. Stevenneeds an LPN 24 hours a day with RN supervision. Steven should have, on a permanent basis,physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy.

From his treating. Board Certified pediatric physiatrist. Dr. Bruce Ganz, who besides beingBoard Certified examiner for those not afraid to be examined, a Fellow ofthe American Academy ofPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, author of thirteen professional publications on the subject ofphysical medicine and rehabilitation, aspeaker at 46 professional gatherings on the subject of


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickersonv. Jeffries - ThomasA. Demetrio Page 5 of26

physical medicine and rehabilitation, is also the physiatrist-in-chiefof the Rehabilitation Institute of

the New England MedicalCenter in Boston and Chairmanof the Department of Rehabilitative

Medicine at Tufts University in Boston:

What did he say? Steven should live at home. Steven will not age prematurely. His seizures

will not cause additional brain damage. Steven's respiratory system is in a normal good state of

health. His urinary tractsystem is in goodhealth. His bowel health is normal. Steven is medically

stable. Steven will live a normal life expectancy ifhe is providedgood medical management,24-

hourLPNcarepermanently, registered nursesupervision twice a week permanently and on a

permanent basis, one hour a day, five days a week physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech andlanguage therapy.

This is the type of evidence thatyou must basethereasonableness of Dr. Jackson's testimony

on. What is more probably true than not true? Steven will live a normal life expectancy if providedthe care he both needs and is indeed entitled to.

Dr. Bilers, another Board Certified physiatrist whowas trained at the Rehabilitation Institute

ofChicago and now teaches and practices there and is also Director ofRehabilitation atHinsdaleHospital, testified at length without cross examination to themedical careand treatment thatStevenwill need and thenursing care hewillreceive. Hetestified to thetherapy care that Steven willreceive, the equipment that hewill need, the supplies that hewill need, the medication that hewillneed, the lab workup that will beperformed ona monthly basis, the home modifications that will beneeded andthe costs forhomemodifications, equipment needs, van needs that Dr. Ganzsaidwere

necessary. Lab needs, supply needs, periodic exam needs, licensed practical nursing and registerednursing care, physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech and language needs were presented toyou in an uncontradicted manner in this courtroom.

Dr. Jackson didsayhe thought a Divinity student could accomplish all the therapy andnursing requirements Steven needs. But, I ask that you consider the source and the reasonableness inlight of all the otherevidence thatyou have hadon those subjects.

I did not go out and hire my doctors. I did not go out and hire any ofthe medical witnesseswho were presented to you. I didnothave that luxury, I hadno options.

I guess I could have hired anybody I would have wanted, but I thought itwould be fair, Ithought itwould be decent, I thought itwould be civilized ifI brought in for you the people who haveactually been taking care of Steven Rickerson.

I did not have the option of going out and hiring people if I was going to do myprofessional


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page6 of 26

job in a responsible way. I brought in the people that know Steven Rickerson the best. And, I ask

that you consider the reasonableness of hiring Dr. Jacksonand having him come in and tell you what

he said to you.

The next subject I want to talk about, before we talk about damages, is something else that has

been brought up by the defendant. And, it is the subject of risk. The defendant in this lawsuit,

through cross-examination, went to great length to supply andtry to elicithowmany risks Steven

has. Because of the severe brain damage, it was brought out that Steven is at risk ofbring subject to

pneumonia. Steven is at risk forbeingsubject to bladder infection. At risk forbeing subject toseizures, bedsores and respiratory problems.

The defendant was unable to establish through the treating doctors or through credible

evidencethat the risk that I havejust talked about would represent a major threat to Steven's life.

Contrary, the evidence was it is more probably true thannot true that theywill be managed and

treated without any problems.

But, of all the indignities andof all therisks that Steven Rickerson hasbeensubjected to in

the last 840 days because of the admitted negligent conduct of thedefendant it wants to thrust uponhim one last risk. The risk involves the way in which, the manner in which, the defendant believes

StevenRickerson shouldhave to investhis money for the future medical care and the future lossof

income.

Why shouldn't Steven Rickerson have to take this one last risk? Because so far, every riskthat he has had has been the direct result of the defendants' conduct. As a result of the admitted

negligent, careless conduct, an extraordinary family unit has been virtually destroyed. The reason issimple. When you take that type ofa motor vehicle and allow it to do what itdid and cause this typeofdamage, this type ofdamage, this type ofdamage, this type ofdamage, etcetera - when they admitthat it was careless and negligent, I ask the obvious question. Why should Steven Rickerson have totake any risk at all?

It is clearfrom the evidence that you have heard - and you heard a lotof economic testimonyand I am not going to review it all - but it is clear that the present cash value as presented to you bythe defendant in this lawsuitwill, in essence,cause StevenRickerson to take all the risks without

getting the benefit.

When defendant finally admitted liability, it didso not because it wanted to do the Rickersonfamily any favors. And for that admission ofnegligence itdoesn't get any pats on the back and itdoesn't get any congratulations from this jury for failing tokeep a proper lookout, for driving a28,000 pound truck too fast in a 50 mile perhour zone, for failing to decrease its speed in order to


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 7 of 26

avoid striking this innocent Datsun, for driving on the wrong sideof the roadon purpose and forfailing to useits horns and forviolating its ownsafety rules andregulations. It does notget anypats

on the back for admitting that.

In light of its admitted careless conduct, I respectfully suggest that Steven Rickerson should

notbe subjected to any more risks than the time value of money in the form of three-year TreasuryNotes. He should not have to take - this is from Professor's Hirt's book - that much risk. Steven

Rickerson hasbeen subjected to all the risks thatone boy is entitled to havein a lifetime.

I suggest that when defendant finally admitted its fault, the need for Steven Rickerson to takeany more risks went right out the window. For Steven Rickerson, full, total, fair and justcompensation for lost income and for future medical expenses means don't subject him toany morerisks for the benefit of this defendant. This defendant, who is singularly, completely, totally

responsible for the light Steven finds himself in, should bear the risk of making sure this boy is takencare of the rest of his life.

I respectfully suggest that the one percent - Til hold it - the one percent differential which,over the last 30 years has proven to be the fact and has proven tobe reasonable, is fair. When Dr.Linke testified, allof his opinions in this courtroom were based upon a reasonable degree ofeconomic - notannuity and not management portfolio, buteconomic - certainty.

The future lost income and medical cost and service and supplies calculated by Professor

Linke went uncontradicted. What defendant did do was to adopt the projections ofProfessorLinke

and then present evidence ofadifferent method to reduce them to present cash value. Professor Linketestified quite honestly as to what he didn't know - hehas no way ofknowing what isgoing tohappen over the next 58 years, just like he wouldn't have known back in 1925 what would occureconomically over the following 25 years—he testified to that what hedidn't know what theeconomic future of wages, medical costsor interest rates are going to be.

But, in response to that, the defendant hired a personal injury settlement annuity salesman tosay that the plaintiffcould buy, within 15 days, a policy for $5.5 million that would supply thoseprojected streams of income over the next 58 years. Ifa premium of$5.5 million, which thedefendant brought out would be available to the plaintiff on the day after you reach your verdict orthe day you do reach your verdict, was paid to INA in this case, it is clear that the plaintiff wouldindeed belocked in. There isno question about it. INA has the $5.5 million and that is locked in.

It is also clear that there is a great deal ofuncertainty in the future, and itwould be risky andridiculous to buy such a policy.


CHILD Injuryand Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 8 of 26

IPs also clear that the defendant gets the benefit ofsuch a risk that would have to be taken by

Steven Rickerson because that $5.5 million supplies a stream of income and when the medical costs

go whichever way- let's say they go up and no one couldpossible anticipate it like Professor Linke

testified- you can't go to INA and say, you know that streamof income you supplied me? Well, it's

not quite cutting it. How about some more money.

There is no way they are going to give him more money. It is also clear that Mr. Casey who

works for the defense 100 percent ofhis time, agrees that safety is the most important aspect when

you are investing.

It's also clear that an insurance company will not —and I am not critical of insurance

companies - but, an insurance company will nottake $5.5 million or any other sum in the form ofapremium andpay the needed costsno matter what those costsmaybe.

If that were the case, Steven Rickerson would not have to take any risk as to what the future

costs are going to be . But, an insurance company will not do that. According to Mr. Casey also, theprices ofannuities fluctuate.

But, the$5.5 million figure should be immediately suspect foroneother very clear, obviousreason. Mr. Casey's company slogan is"Provide for their needs, satisfy their wishes but atour cost."With respect to the portfolio manager, Mr. Hirt, his most important input to this trial was his textbookand his charts. His words: "Inflation is real. You can't outguess the market, any market. Risk, it's

the uncertainty ofoutcome ofaninvestment. Risk is an important consideration since each investormust assess hisor herown goals and needs. Each investor must examine their own willingness totake risk," says Dr. Hirt.

"The first factor, the very first factor that the investor must consider is the amount of risk thathe orshe isprepared to assume." According to Dr. Hirt, "High returns are related to risk," and hewrote, "Each of us, regardless of ourplight in life, has different risk taking desires."

I respectfully suggest that you award Steven Rickerson the relative risk-free verdict in theform ofpresent cash value now consistent with the economic opinions of Dr. Linke. I alsorespectfully suggest that what you are reducing to present cash value are his lost earnings and hisfuture medical expensesonly. We will talk about this in a minute.

I don't believe Steven Rickerson, based upon the evidencein this courtroom and based upon

the law that you will be given, should have to incur that one last risk to the benefit of this defendant.I suggest that you aregoing to be getting three verdict forms. One of them will be to compensate

file.7/D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD -Rickerson v. Jeffries -Thomas A. Demetrio Page 9of26

Steven Rickerson for his injuries and expenses. And the other two - one will be for the amount to be^ filled in for thedeath of Carol Rickerson and the third one will be forScott Rickerson.

The verdict form that you get with respect to Steven, I believe, will look like this one that Ihave just put up. Ihave worked out the figures for future medical care, nursing care, therapy care,equipment needs, lab needs, medication needs and supply needs. All ofthese costs wentuncontradicted. However, we reached present cash value ina different fashion.

But, using Professor Linke's calculations, Irespectfully suggest that it would be fair andreasonable and just and decent in this particular lawsuit to award this amount ofmoney -$8,616,972. Ihave added into that figure the cost for the initial van and all of the rest ofthe projectedcosts do not include anew van into the future. Only the equipment to adapt it for wheelchair use.

The initial van, $18,600; the initial equipment needs, $11,526; the home modification costs of$67,500. That is $97,926. That is money that will be spent immediately, so Ihave already includedit in that amount.

On the subject of lost eamings. Professor Linke used a14 percent fnnge benefit rate becauseit is fair and those are benefits that indeed Steven will lose. Mr. Tobin spent a lot oftime cross-examining him on those factors, but Iwill stand here, Iwill summarily dismiss it and Iwill suggestthat it is fair and reasonable that they be included. He also added 10 percent to his figure because theaverage Illinois worker does in fact earn 10 percent more than other workers throughout the century.So, he did it because it is true. And, that was supported by government studies that he cited for ourbenefit.

And also it is pointed out that Steven was included in the two-thirds, the two-thirds of allworkers who worked year round and he was included in that because why shouldn t he have thebenefit of that doubt. Ifthe lad/sscales ofjustice tip, why shouldn't they tip in his favor mthatregard? Isn't it more probably true than not true that Steven Rickerson would be included in thatmajor percent?

Lastly, Iwould like to point out that in Professor Linke's calculations for high school workers,he only has Steven Rickerson working until age 56. You can use your experiences in life todetermine whether or not it is more probably true than not he would only work to age 56. But,assuming that it is true and with respect to the college worker, he's only working to age 58. But, Iwould suggest it would be fair for lost eamings to use the high school figures.

We know that neither Carol Rickerson nor Dave Rickerson went to college, but that doesn'tmean that Steven Rickerson who, in the 5^^ grade, was the equivalent of a10^^ grader in science, that


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD -Rickerson v. Jeffries -Thomas A. Demetrio Page 10 of26

doesn't mean he wouldn't have gone to college. But, not knowing whether or not he ever wouldhave, I suggest we use the high school figure reduced to present cash value of$673,797. The collegefigure was $891,311. And, ifyou believe that is fairer and more reasonable, please use that one.

The medical expenses were put in. They were uncontradicted. And, the law says, in thislawsuit, that they are entitled to reimbursement for those medical expenses. So, our old fnend, thelaw, says it is so. The law specifically says, Ibelieve —and you will be so instructed —that the pastmedical expenses and supplies, et cetera, in the amount of$275,133.95 is an element ofdamage foryour consideration. 1am suggesting that in this particular lawsuit, the expenses that have beenincurred todate are uncontradicted and that they are both fair and just, and inaddition, reasonable.

Now, these three elements ofdamages, I am going toatthis time respectfully ask that youtake them and put them on ashelf and you forget that they exist because you are going to be given inthe form ofthe instructions from the Court, 1believe, separate elements ofdamages just like you seeon this board. And, the next separate, distinct element ofdamage is for disability and then you willhave disfigurement and then you will have physical pain and mental suffering.

The next most important word that 1think you will hear besides risk is a little three-letterword, and it is "not," the word "not." The law that we are all bound by specifically states that fordisability, disfigurement and physical pain and mental suffering, the amounts that are awarded forthese three separate, distinct elements ofdamages are not to be reduced to present cash value.

Disability is simply the opposite ofthe ability to do certain things. For example, you will see afew photographs ofSteven as he existed prior to August 31,1981. And, in one of those you will seehim holding the soccer ball that he will never kick again, and to fully appreciate the enormousdisability that Steven Rickerson has had inflicted upon him, it may be best to remember Steven,pursuant to the evidence, as he was prior to August 31,1981.

Steven was described to be the proverbial normal, average 10-year-old boy. He was thetypical big brother who included Scott in his activities and who would hug Scott when aseizure wastaking place. In his father's words, Steven was eveiything that Scott wanted to be. Steven wasenthusiastic about sports. He played soccer, baseball, basketball, football, hockey. He rode his bike.He did errands for his mom. He always helped with family projects. He was an excellent student.He was astamp collector, safety patrol member and he enjoyed camping, canoeing, hiking and familytrips. The uncontradicted evidence is that he always had been in excellent health.

These two photographs show Steven the way he is today. When you do deliberate, you willget achance to go through all of the exhibits. Many of them - most of them - you have not seen indetail. But, at any rate, these two photographs represent Steven Rickerson as he is today and as he

file://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.hlm 4/16/2001


will be for the next 58 years. And, he" in about the worst possible shape a human being can be in.

He's totally, completely dependent upon the acts, the kindnesses, the caring, the conduct, the

professionalism, the dedication andthe love of others. And, that is for a lifetime, 58 moreyears.

To further appreciatethe significance of his disability, let's review what occurred immediately

after 10:30a.m. August 31, 1981. Stevenwas found to be unconscious, unresponsive and comatose.

By September 4^ he was moaning and groaning. Then his right eye opened, his head moved, hestarted to show facial expressions ofhappiness, sadness, shock and surprise. His left eye then

opened. He continued to respond more. He continued tomoan and groan. He smiled when his fatherbrought uppleasant memories. He started swallowing teeny-weeny bitsof baby found and pudding.

Hehad six surgical procedures to help himcope with his disabilities andthroughout his stays

at Sherman, Marion Joy, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the Greenery andTuftsNew EnglandMedical Center, Stevenhas had extensive occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech andlanguage therapy and superior skilled nursing care and treatment. Again, for the sole purpose ofhelping him cope with his massive disabilities.

1guess, perhaps, all ofus have appreciated a little bitmore the things that we take for grantedinoureveryday lives. But, based upon the evidence, here iswhat disability means to StevenRickerson. Minute to minute, hour to hour,week to week, month to month, year to year for the next

58 years.,c

For StevenRickerson, disability means, on a permanent basis, scoleosis, contractures,

spasticity, probable deafhess in his left ear, involuntary reflexes, the inability to control either hisbowels or his bladder, the inability to walk, the inability to talk, to feed himself, to dress himself, tobathe himself, to turn himself, toshave himself, tobrush his hair or his teeth. The inability topropelhis own wheelchair. The inability to play and the inability to work.

Disability for Steven means being relegated to a life in bed ora wheelchair ora shower chairora tilt board ora physical therapy mat. Disability means being relegated to a life ofmoon boots andsplints and diapers. He will always be fed, medicated and given liquids through a gastrostomy tube.He has not had orgulped down a Coke, a glass of lemonade, a glass ofmilk, oranything else, in over27 months. Disability for Steven Rickerson means the inability toeatat the family dinner table, toride a bike or kick a goal with his best fnend, Eric, or to make new fnends hisage.

Disability means never having a wife, enjoying sex, having children, enjoying grandchildren.For Steven Rickerson, disability means the inability tohelp his dad, whether it's working around hishouse or inhis old age. It means the inability to say, 'Hi, Dad." "I love you." "Thank you." Itmeans the inability to hughis father. It means the inability to study either math or science. It means

fi le://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


the inability to wipe his nose or dry his tearswhen he cries,whichhe does. The inability to be an

altar boy, attend a prom or serve his country.

Disability means that unlike his epileptic, grand mal seizure ridden brother, Scott, Stevenwill

neversing in a Christmas concert, act in a school play,pick up his toys or be able to runor participate

in the KennedyFoundationSpecial Olympics. It means the inability to go to school of any type,

whether it is for leaming disabilities or otherwise.

Steven will neversquirm in his seatand he will never havethe privilege of serving on a jury.

Insteadofbeingallowedto enjoy the ups and downs of life with dignity, StevenRickerson,

through no fault of anyone other thanthedefendant in this lawsuit, is indeed disabled. Thenatureand extent of that disability is permanentand it's probablybest appreciated by viewing how this 13-

year-old- 3-year-oldhas worked hard to deal and cope with his disabilities.

And, although Jacksonsaid that StevenRickerson did not respondto voice on that tape, and

he did not track and he could not focus and that he was unimpressed with the manner in which Steven

responded to the sense of smell, I askthatyou judge for yourselves while you see firsthand thedefinition ofdisability in this lawsuit.

(Whereupon, a videotape of 15 minutes duration was shown which is notherein transcribed, afterwhich a short recess was held).

What you just sawandwhat you heard in this courtroom from qualified, Board Certifiedtreating physiatrists, his occupational therapist, his registered nurse, his father, and what you will seein the forms of other exhibits that you will look at when you deliberate, is all thedaily reality of lifefor Steven Rickerson. It is the real world life of this innocent 13-year-old 3-year-old.

Remembering thatdisability, like disfigurement and physical pain andsuffering, is not

reduced to present cashvalue, I respectfully suggest that $8 million is fair, just and reasonable,

appreciating what the law says about that element of damage and appreciating what theuncontradicted evidence was in this lawsuit regardingdisability alone as separate, distinct elementof

damage, that it is fair, just and reasonable.

Disfigurement is the next element anddisfigurement means a maiming, a change in one's

appearance without theirpermission and chance in an ugly way. When he wascreated, Steven


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD- Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 13 of 26

Rickerson, was healthy, normal, happy, good looking, but at 10:30on August 31,1981, the conduct

of this defendant did everything in its power to change that.

I will not dwell on the obvious. The disfigurement in the form ofcontractures, scoleosis, the

inability to evenmoveis so obvious to all of us. But, I will recommend that I think for the next 60

years- the last two years and the next 58 years- one to two million dollars for that separate distinct

element of disfigurement alone is fair and just.

The last element of damage for yourconsideration for Steven Rickerson is the physical pain

and mental suffering experienced. Again, it is a separate, distinct element of damage to the exclusionof theother separate, distinct, separate elements of damages. It is also thesecond most sigmficantelement ofdamage. There is notoneperson who has ever had pain thatwants to remember it, dwellon it, eventhinkabout it. And that gift of being pain-free is probably one of the greatest gifts we can

have.

It is easy for healthy people to forget this little four letter word, pain, because when you don't

have it, you don't think about it. But, at any rate, it needs tobediscussed. The law supplies that it isa separate, distinct element of damage, so discuss it we will.

EvenDr. Jackson was silent on the subjectofphysicalpain, but there was the uncontradicted

evidence from Dr. Flannigan, Dr. Philip andDr. Ganz. Steven Rickerson does —has anddoes -experience pain, but hecan'tdo much about it. He does moan, he does groan, he does grunt. Hemakes facial grimaces and gestures to show obvious discomfort. But, more important inthis case, Ithink, than physical pain, is the concept ofmental suffering. Even Dr. Jackson said, *This kid isaware ofhis environment."

In an uncontradicted fashion, the evidence clearlyestablished the following. While at

Sherman Hospital, according to Dr. Flannigan, Steven was aware of his environment. Hewas able todistinguish between anobnoxious taste and a palatable one. He would grimace at an obnoxioussmell. He would grimace in response tobeing soiled badly and he shows reaction to displeasure anddiscomfort. He was capable of responding more to his father and his grandparents and hewouldsmile. Hewas capable of expressing sadness by facial response and tearing of the eyes.

While at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Dr. Philip testified that Steven responded

more to his father's voice than anyone else's and that hewas aware of hisenvironment. Hisregistered nurse testified that they make him both physically and mentally ready for bed. They give

^ him his ET and his Smurfdolls. Steven knows his days from his nights. He is bombarded withstimulation. Steven knows whenhe is interacting withsomeone close to him. He smiles a lot at his

father. He groans at, and he both hears and sees TV.


CHILD Injuryand WrongfulDeath CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 14 of 26

His occupational therapist testified that Steven can follow commands. That he, today, can

swallow two to four spoonfuls of applesauceby mushing it down without his tongue, pushing it out,

and without biting down on the spoon. That he has started to push objects away with his left hand.

She testified that he is moving his right thumb and hand better to commands. He can and does play

video games with his right thumb. Steven can squeeze her hand. He is more attentive now to her

voice. He can hold his head up now more consistently without any assistance and recently set the

record of two-and-a-half minutes while sitting on the mat.

He turns his head away now without total body involvement to the left and the right. He can

now bring his head back alone after coughing,which he does strongly. Accordingto Dr. Ganz,

Stevencan hear out of the right ear. He can see, he can feel, he can smell, and he can swallow,

although with great difficulty, and now with great safety.

According to Dr. Ganz, Stevencan track, recognize thoseclose to him, smile, make

expressions of sadness, appreciate a pet. He is aware of discomfort, according to Dr. Ganzand

according to this eminent pediatric physiatrist, one of 60 in thecountry, Steven Rickerson is aware of

his environmentand he has the clear ability to visually, auditorallyand tactally be aware of specific

things and to reactdifferently to different people and environmental changes.

In an uncontradictedfashion. Dr. Ganz specifically stated that Steven is at best functioning in

some ways at theequivalent level of a two or three year oldchild, butwill onedaybe able to read at agrade-one orgrade-two level. Without hesitation and without contradiction. Dr. Ganz testified thatSteven Rickerson is aware ofhis limitations and his disabilities. Steven shows fiustrations when

asked to do things that arepresently beyond his ability to do. He shows sadness in theform of facialgestures and crying.

Steven communicates bybody language, facial gestures, his right thumb, vocal utterances, andnow a switch, which he canclearly operate on command. If onesuddenly gotstuck in theultimatenightmare, it would betobeasSteven Rickerson is today, because the negligent conduct of thisdefendant did not totally destroy him. There is something left.

Whatever made Steven Rickerson who he is, some of that is left. There is an awareness and

response left so that Steven Rickerson, based upon all the evidence that you have heard in this case -and once again, I suggest thatit is uncontradicted in this regard - isa prisoner in a useless bodyexcept for the advancement he has made with his right thumb and his right hand.

I think it would be fair and I think it would be just under the evidence in this case that Steven

Rickerson be awarded $6 million for the separate, distinct element alone of being locked into this

file:/AD:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries -Thomas A. Demetrio Page 15 of26

body of his and being aware and being responsive tohis environment.

The second lawsuit involves the death ofCarol Rickerson. And, when I mentioned early on

that you had aunique opportunity here today and the privilege that some ofyou had before ofservingon ajury and most ofyou haven't, is unique in this respect, in that you are now considering threeseparate lawsuits involving the death oftwo and the catastrophic interference with athird life.

But, for the second separate lawsuit inthis case, I believe the Court will instruct you that youmust fix the amount ofmoney that would reasonably and fairly compensate Dave Rickerson andSteven Rickerson for the pecuniary loss they have suffered as a result oftheir wife's and mother'sdeath.

I believe the Court will instruct you that where the decedent, Carol, leaves a husband and ason, the law recognizes apresumption that they both have sustained apecuniary loss. And, that is inthe form ofmoney, goods and services. But, the law goes a step further. The law makes apresumption and you will be instructed in this regard, I believe —that the law presumes somesubstantial pecuniary loss.

And, the Court will also tell you that you can take into consideration certain things that willhelp you determine what that substantial loss has been. Such things as her age which was 33. Herhealth, which was excellent. Her habits for sobriety. We know that she never drank. So, I am goingto discuss Carol Rickerson with you now and we know that the uncontradicted evidence about eachofthe four Rickersons was glowing, but I did not gild the lily. At least, I don't think Igilded the lily.

In discussing Carol Rickerson, Iwant to reiterate the uniqueness ofthis lady, this mother andthis wife. I believe the Court will instruct you that you can also take into consideration indetermining the substantial pecuniary loss, what Carol customarily contributed to her family in thepast and her habits of industry and thrift. We know she contributed her entire being to her family. Itconsumed her life. But, let's talk about whether or notCarol was industrious.

Upon graduating from high school in 1965, she was employed as ageneral clerical worker forBennett Brothers where she worked until shortly before Steven was bom in 1972. She then stayedhome to rear her two children until Scott entered the Bartlet Leaming Center atage 5 in 1977. Shevolunteered atthe office in 1977 part time and then she became the full time secretary to theadministrator ofthe Bartlet Leaming Center and the school program director. In that capacity, CarolRickerson was responsible for the total operation ofthe office from nine a.m. to three p.m. She wasthe front person for the school. She filled out forms, she answered the phone, she recorded tuitions,she prepared bank statements, she was the overall school coordinator.

fi le://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 6̂/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffnes - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 16 of26

Carol was Father Luczak's right-hand personand she would be working for him today hadshe

been allowedto live. She would only be makingbetween$7,700 and $8,000 a year today. Money

was not the driving force that caused Carol Rickerson to work at the BartletLearning Center. She

worked at the Bartlet Learning Center clearly to be near Scott.

I believe the Court will instruct you that in determining the substantialpecuniaryloss Steven

has suffered as a result ofhis mother's death for what turns out to be forty-six and one-half-years of

being motherless - you may take into consideration what instruction, moral training andsuperintendence ofeducation Carol would have provided Steven as well as taking into considerationher occupation.

We know from the evidence thatalthough shewas a secretary, shededicated herworking life

the way she did for Scott's benefit. She was dedicated to Scott. The evidence tells us that she felt aneed to have the best possible things done for Scott. Educationally, socially, emotionally. She wantedto play as much a part in providing this for Scott as she could. Carol was willing to do anything shecould to help Scott and she enjoyed it. According to Sister Francesca, Carol was interested inall thatScott was trying to achieve. And, this was the guidance in his life.

Shewould administer Scott's twelve to fourteen pills a day, allow himthe selfworth of taking

the school bus home alone, butwas there to greet him when he got offthebus to come home. Theevidence established that Carol was very solicitous and very motherly to Scott because ofhis seizureproblem. Shewas a veryconcemed mother.

She helped Scott study at home with his studies, his flash cards and his reading. She wasactively involved with his teachers, his occupational therapists and his speech and languagetherapists. She did all of this for Scott, but not at the expense ofSteven.

Stevennever sufferedas a result of this mother's dedicationto Scott. Knowing what we

knowof Carol's dedication to Scott, isn't it fair and isn't it reasonable and isn't it decent to assume

that it is more probably true than not true that that dedication would have intensified in her role ofhelping Steven overcome —help overcome which he never will —but to work with him with respectto his disabilities, work that he so desperately needs right now.

Itwas Napoleon who said, 'The future destiny ofthe children is always the work ofamother". And, Lincoln said, "All that 1am or hope tobe,1owe to myangel mother."

This supermom - and when 1numbered my exhibits, 1didn't do so in acareless fashion. 1made this oneExhibit Number I because it stands for everything 1think Carol Rickerson was. She


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD- Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 17 of 26

was the type ofmother that her family thoughtenough about her where her license plate holder says

"Supermom". Have you huggedyour kid today, asks Carol Rickerson as she is going innocently

down the highway. Carol Rickerson supplied her twochildren with the moral background and

education of religion. First Communion. Church everyweek for both boys. CCD, both boys, each

week.

She made wall decorations to remind them of the principle of sharing which you will see

whenyou deliberate. Can you imagine training a nine or ten year old boy - and both ofthem at the

same time - to actually fight over who dries and who cleans the dishes?

Consider the background of this particular family when you are determining the substantial

pecuniary loss sustained as a result of Carol's death. According to theirfather, they were willing andambitious to help their parents, these two boys, to achievea project for the common good. That

doesn't happen overnight. It comes from training.

Was Carol Rickerson thrifty? The Court is going to say you can consider that. She took care

of the household finances and she earned extra money for the family. And, that money went into the

household expenses. She madeclothes for her family, made wreaths, madewall plaques and

decorations to matchthe wallpaper. Withher husband, she wallpapered the walls and the light

switches throughout theentire house so, ironically enough, the light switches would notstick out likea sore thumb, which is one of the few things Steven Rickerson has left.

With her husband, she built a chimney, but didn't get a chance to finish it. She paneled the

garage and weatherproofed it with herhusband. She finished offanunfinished basement, putup allthe plasterboard, put up all the wall coverings, put in the extra duct-work and put in the paneling inthe ceiling.

Withher husband, she put up the guttering on the outsideof the house. She did the masonry

work in the basement, did the paneling and the stucco ceiling in thechildren'splayroom. Shehelped

install the central air conditioning. She put together a TV and in addition, did all of the household

chores of cleaning, cooking, et cetera.

According to her husband, Carol Rickerson was always involved in the maintenance of the

house. She was always willing to help. There was nevera projectaround the house too large to

tackle. She never would admit defeat. Carol Rickerson would always keep trying until she achieved

the goal she wanted. Yes, Carol Rickerson was both industrious and thrifty.

I believe the Court will instruct you thatwith respect to David Rickerson, you mayconsider,in determining his substantial pecuniary loss as a result of hiswife's death, the loss of hiswife's

file;//D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001

CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD- Rickerson v. Jeffnes - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 18 of 26

society, companionship and conjugal relations. Weknow thatall marriages aren't madein heaven.

There is no question about it. But, this particular marriage, please base it on the evidence that youhaveheard and nothing else because this particular marriage, as has been clearly established, was as

close to being heaven made as is earthly possible.

With respect to Caroland Dave, they met in 1962 at a play, 'TIowto HaveFun Without

Really Trying." And, theydid until August 31, 1981. They went through a courtship period andbecame engaged in 1965. Theirmarriage occurred on October 5,1968. They always vacationedtogether, going upto Canada, theeastcoast, camping, hiking and canoeing. They spent theweekendstogether. They were weekend stay-at-homers. Their second jobswere to bewith each other. They didthe shopping together. They fixed the housetogether. Theyplayed together.

According to the uncontradicted evidence, thiswasa very, veryclose relationship. Theywere

like best friends. Her main concern was her family, and 1think it's obvious. Without the benefit of

this wifeof thirteen years, for fourmonths after the funeral, the two funerals, this caringfather slept

in a chair at the foot of his son's bed for four months until he was literally asked to leave so Steven

could differentiate between day and night.

He saw his son everysingleday up until August 23,1982 whenhe drove out to the Greenery.

He flies to Boston every otherweekend andhas sinceAugust of 1982. He calls threetimes a week to

check on him. He wants and needs Steven home. He's made and authorized all the arrangements to

accomplish that. He'sgot his son placed inone of the finest head trauma centers in the country. Hetakes Steven to theshopping market, the icecapades, Disney on Ice, thecircus, zoos, parks,museums, walksalong the Charles River. He talks to his son constantly.

Whether it is his birthday, Easter, the 4^^ ofJuly, Halloween, Christmastime, Steven's roomisalways decorated for the appropriate season just like a home would be. When he's asked byhisfather while at the zoo, "Are youhappy," this little 13 yearold-3 yearold, raises his rightthumb.

The Rickerson's movedto 804 Hayward in Streamwood in Octoberof 1972. Youhave seen

the home. It has beenan empty reminder forDavidRickerson since August 31, 1981. When Steven

finally does come back, this house will suddenly be tumed into a home again.

All his father has done for Steven has been without the society, companionship and the love

ofhis high school sweetheart, as corny as that may sound. And the way David Rickerson has risen tothis tragic occasion, isn't it more probably true than not true that the type ofrelationship that Caroland Dave Rickerson had canbe clearly gleaned and inferred? And, 1believe theCourt will instructyou that you can infer. That is called circumstantial evidence - forget the direct evidence. It'suncontradicted.

rile://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


Infer the typeof relationship, the closeness thatCarolandDave hadand shared together.

Can't you glean that, based upon the way he has responded in helping his son? Forgetting the moneyaspect, themoney - now remember, it's money, goods andservices. And, the Court will specifically

tell you how you determine that. Again, it is reduced in this lawsuit and in the third one, Scott'slawsuit, that amount of money is reduced to present cash value. But, forgetting the money aspectof

it, isn't it more probably true than not trueconsidering the goods andservices alone, reduced topresent cash value, thatthis indeed should be a substantial award.

I recommend respectfully for the lossof Carol Rickerson and for the elements of damages

specifically directed ather, that the verdict that you render be inthe amount oftwo to three milliondollars alone just for the death of Carol Rickerson. The last verdict form you must sign is for Scott'sdeath. And, in thatregard, I believe theCourt will instruct youthatwith thedeath of a son, there is apresumption again ofsubstantial - not skimpy - substantial, pecuniary loss with respect toa father.

However, the law does not presume a substantialpecuniaryloss when a brother loses a

brother at the hands of a negligentdefendant. But, forgetting the presumption - what has the

evidence been with respect to Scott and Steven? In that regard, 1simply ask youto understand and

trytoappreciate who, more than Scott Rickerson, could fully appreciate theplight that Steven nowhas. With respect to goods and services and notmoney, Scott Rickerson did not ask tobejudged atage nine. That is something thatjust happened.

We don't know what he would have been able to do. We don't know how well he would

havebeenable to do it. However, with respect to Scott, presume thathe would havesupplied - andI

think it's fair to glean from the evidence that he would have supplied - Steven with goods andservices. And, that he would havebeenthe one Rickerson to supply thosegoods and services because

there are no brothers and sisters, there are no aunts and uncles, there are no cousins. What is more

probably true than not true, ifgiven the opportunity to live, as to what goods and services Scott wouldhave supplied to Steven.

I'm not going to suggest a figure for you in that regard. 1have been fighting with it and 1amnot gong to suggest a figure. I'm going to leave it up to your good conscious, your good judgment andask that you dowhat is fair, just and reasonable in that regard. You accept that burden, please,without any input from me. In the last 840 days, anawful lot ofgood, dedicated people have helpedSteven Rickerson. 1urge that you render your decisions and your three verdicts based solely upon theevidence and the law that you have heard in this courtroom.

I believethe Court will also instructyou that you should not take into consideration the grief

or the sorrow that Dave Rickerson and Steven have suffered as a result of their wife's and mother's


CHILD Injury and Wrongful Death CD - Rickerson v. Jeffries - Thomas A. Demetrio Page 20of 26

death and the same is true to Scott. I am not asking for grief, sorrow, sympathy. Sympathy is

something that Mr. Tobinraised whilehe was selecting thejury. He was concerned about it. He said

it's a problem that we haveandat that time, I responded that that is the last thingthe Rickersons needor want, most respectfully, from you or from Mr. Tobinor the Jeffries Truck Lines Incorporated, or

anybody else.

I ask you to reachyour verdicts and yourjudgments in this matterbasedsolelyon the

evidence you have heard in thiscourtroom andI ask that it bejust and fairandreasonable in lightof

all of the evidence and the law that you are about to hear. I thank you for your patience, your

consideration, andI willget an opportunity to talk to youagain afterMr. Tobin addresses you. Thank

you.

(Defense thengaveclosing statement. Afterward, Mr. Demetrio gavethe following rebuttal.)

Several times in the closing argument wejust heard, Mr. Tobin stated that he was surprised

and perplexed atcertain things. Well, in the early November when I got a phone call from Mr. Tobinand learnedof the existenceof Dr. Jackson for the very first time, I was a bit surprisedand perplexed

myself. I could not believe the logic, the understanding, the significance, the rationale of thisdefendant coming before twelve people and suggesting that wehurt Steven Rickerson sobadhewasgoing to die. How inthe world could that benefit them, I thought, and I couldn't figure it out.

Why inthe world would they suggest to you we hurt him so bad, he is so badly brain damagedthat in fact he is going to die? Well, the argument that you have just heard is amazing in that it wassuggested that Dave Rickerson - and perhaps myself, aswell - are scoundrels. Hehas never beeninvolved in a lawsuit in this courtroom where there was a scoundrel involved. Everybody is perfect.

The plaintiff picks their witnesses. Well, I strongly suggest that if there was one witness inthisworld who could come in and say that Carol Rickerson wasnoteverything that shewasportrayedfor your benefit to be, you would have heard it.

If they cango to Denver, Colorado and find a guy who owns a company whose whole

occupation and job in life is to mitigate damages - whether it be on October 27^^ or at the beginningwhen he shouldhave been hired- and the innuendo that Mr. Tobingot involved in this lawsuit late is

' just not true. Mr. Tobin's been around. He didn't have to wait until October 27 to contactsomebody, to find out who can I get to come in and talk about life expectancy.



There is a guy, Jackson. You know him. He's the guy that goes around talking to insurancecarriers andtelling them thatbrain damaged people, massively brain damaged people, don'tdieanymore. But, no problem. He'll come into court and saywhat is needed, ashe did, plucking it outof the air. I didn't make him pluckit out of the air. He plucked it out of the air.

To suggest for one second that thewitnesses - and there were 24 of them supplied by theplaintiff toportray the Rickersons, both the family and Steven as heis, using only treating people -that those people are somehow - and the word was - wishful thinkers. They are all wishful thinkers.Dr. Ganz, this eminentpediatric physiatrist, is a wishful thinker.

The only scoundrel, the only wishful thinker that we saw in this courtroom was Dr. Jackson. 1say that and I am going to leave the subject alone. IfDr. Jackson has fooled me and he's fooled all ofus, so be it. If this suggested price of$2million for Steven Rickerson is what you believe is accurate,so beit. But, picture this. Two years, three years, five years, ten years, twenty years from now, ifSteven Rickerson could talk - and he can't and he never will - makes a phone call first to H. J.

Jeffries. You remember me. I'm Steven Rickerson. You killed my mother, you killed my brother,

you gave me massive brain damage where 1was a spastic quadriplegic and we had a trial back inChicago inDecember of 1983. Remember me? Well, my money has run out because 1lived. Click.

Then maybe he'll call Dr. Hirt, the guy that - you came in. You testified and you are the onethat said safety, no problem. Let's look atHirt's own chart. That isHirt's chart. No such thing asrisk free. That may be, butTreasury Bills, three year notes, are more riskfree than long termgovernment bonds.

Youremember me? I'm the one thatyou testified against. Sure,1remember you. Well, my

money has run out. Number one, 1didn't get enough to begin with. But, number two, 1used it theway you said and it ran out. Well, that's the risk of investing your money, son. Click.

What if he were to call Mr. Casey? Mr. Casey, remember me? Probably won't by that time.Casey will have done many, many other cases by then. You said for $5.5 million you can supply meeverything 1need. Well, my premium was paid the next day and 1paid the insurance company $5.5million and 1was getting my monthly check, but it's not enough anymore. That's too bad, son.Click.

What if he were to call me? "Mr. Demetrio, can we get thatjury back and assemble them?

Seems to be a littleproblem here." "No, Steven, that's not the way it works."

The fairness, the legitimacy and the decency to suggest $2 million - and you notice that this

fi 1e://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


legal representative never once made mention ofdisability, disfigurement, physical pain and mental/^\ suffering. He never even addressed the subject. Why? Because he knows it is not reduced topresent

cashvalue. Why? Because he knows the evidence is uncontradicted.

I say to you if I am offthe wall and I have missed something and because of the lateness ofDr. Jackson getting into this case I can'tsee the forest through the trees and you believe that StevenRickerson based only upon the evidence that came from this Dr. Jackson isgoing tobedead withinten years, then I respectfully ask you, I plead with you, I think itwould be fair that the money I haveput up and suggested is fair for disability, pain and suffering and disfigurement, I ask that you doubleit. If that is the way this youngboy is goingto die, double it.

Here isanother thing. Dr. Eilers. Dr. Bilers, again a treating doctor soon tobe. I didn't askhim about life expectancy. So, the inference is that Dr. Bilers had a different opinion than Dr. Ganz,Dr. Philip, Dr. Grady and Dr. Flannigan. Remember when I finished direct examination? Itwas nowtime for some devastating cross-examination by theable Mr. Tobin. "No questions."

If, for a minute - and heknows Dr. Bilers. If, for a minute, he thought that Dr. Bilers wouldsay, yes, I am going to take care ofthis boy, but he is going to die, do you think this man would havehis son being taken care ofbyadoctor like that? Someone like Dr. Jackson? IfMr. Tobinlegitimately, with decency, wanted to know the answer to that question, why didn't he ask him? Lifeexpectancy was never an issue in this lawsuit.

When Dr. Bilers wentout to Boston in May tosee Steven for the first timeandDr. Bilers read

every one ofthese medical records. Dr. Jackson didn't before he reached his opinions. This wasn'teven an issue that was brought up inthis lawsuit until enter Dr. Jackson with his report ofOctober31, 1983.

No, I did not ask Dr. Bilers. Actually, itwasn't abig deal as far as I am concerned. But, I didknowing that Dr. Jackson was coming in, Idid ask his treating doctors and Iasked every single one ofthem. Why? Not because I was concerned about it, but I knew what Dr. Jackson was going to say.

Iwill go a little bit out oforder, but starting at the beginning, Scott is an enigma. That's whathe was. Well, I'm not going to say aword about the suggestion that this boy, his life, his goods andservices, his whole future was worth $50,000. I will not dignify itwith a response. What was thepurpose ofputting forth that these boys did the dishes for their mother? The purpose ofit- to answerthe unanswered question —was to supply you with information on what type ofmother CarolRickerson was. The moral guidance she supplied.

This woman, whose life isonly worth $250,000 - and he says it with a straight face - in light

fi le://D;\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


of all the evidence that was supplied foryou in an uncontradicted fashion. Carol Rickerson. Well,whatdid that leave Mr. Rickersonto do? That gave time for Mr. Rickerson to spend with his wife, to

work with his wife, to love his wife, to share her affection, her companionship. This evidence, if-

believe me- if they could find Dr. Jackson, they could find anybody to come in and say the

Rickersons were the opposite ofwhat they were portrayed to be.

Thedecency, the fairness of that typeof argument carries rightover to this argument with

respect toSteven. Why did Demetrio putinevidence of the car wreck? To get your sympathy? No.If the Court - the Court allows me, the law allows me, to supply you with the evidence as to how this

occurred. And, if it weren't, we wouldhave heard objections from Mr. Tobin. If it weren't, you never

would have gotten to see it. The law supplies me thatopportunity.

You have every right to know howthis tragedy occurred. Youhaveevery rightto know, as

jurors, finders of the facts, deciders of the issues, to know exactly what happened with respect toCarol Rickerson, Scott Rickerson and Steven Rickerson.

He just about said it- that we are attempting to steal. We are attempting to steal from thiscorporation. Our system ofjustice isno good because it isan opportunity to come inand steal.That's what this man said. Whenwe were pickingthejury, Mr.Tobinstartedtalking aboutsympathy

and he's talked about it all along andI amgoing to suggest why he's talking about it. He's hopingthat you confuse natural sympathy, which we don't want, with the true facts inthis lawsuit.

He's hoping that when you come to deliberate even though he doesn't want to talk about it-butthis is real just asSteven will never walk or talkagain is real - disability is an important,substantial element of this lawsuit. Probably the most substantial. The evidence is all

uncontradicted. He thought that maybe hewould not talk about it, maybe you'd forget about it. But,when you get into that jury room, one ofyou might say, well, wait a minute. Are we doing thisbecause of sympathy?

He did that on purpose so you would start thinking sympathy. It's reverse psychology. Hewants sympathy to be confused with the evidence that you have heard in this courtroom. I stand bytheevidence that was supplied to youby me. I stand by Dr. Linke. I stand by Dr. Ganz who I nevermet inmy life. Dr. Gray who I had never met in my life, who I had never met before in my life. Dr.Flannigan who I had never met before in my life. The registered nurse, as well as the occupationaltherapist. Never one of them. They didn't know me from Adam. I didn't know them from Adam,butI needed them. Why? They were treating people and they came in under oath and told you whatSteven's condition was and what the future holds for him.

Dr. Linke, 1stand by. You heard enough economists. You are intelligent enough and there is

fi le://D:\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


no question about that, so you can figure out whetheror not the legitimacy, the fairness of puttinga

chart together, and Mr. Tobin himself - and I re-emphasized it on cross examination- Mr. Tobin told

Hirt to use the five and a half - the five and the nine-and-a-half percent differences.

When Mr. Hirt came down before you -1 have lost my charts - came down before you and

told you that the differential for long-term government bonds has been, and is, the same as short term

bonds - and both Hirt and Linke agreed that this has been an exceptional period and they are both

comingdown and theywill meet again and it will be a one percentdifferential.

The fairness, the decency ofputting up a chart showing the difference of 64.40 percent in

Linke's figure and Hirt's figure whenwe know from Professor Hirt's own chart that there are indeed

risk factors, that this boy - that this boy should not have to take one more risk.

It's been suggested that the American National Bank, because it is the guardian, with all of its

wisdom, is goingto invest this money that you render him in suchgreatways and thereis going to be

moremoney thanwhat is needed. The point is, number one, this moneyfordisability, painandsuffering and disfigurement is not reduced to present cash value.

What happens to that money, I respectfully suggest, is no one's business. It is none of my

business, it is none of his business, and especiallyit is not this corporation's business. It is nobody's

business. But, with respect to thelost income and themedical expenses, theAmerican National Bankwho, as was pointed out, was appointed guardian of theEstate of Steven Rickerson in earlyNovember 1983, is under the guidance, the supervision of the Probate Court of the Circuit Court of

this county. They can't do anything without the approval of the Probate Court.

There was mention made of the fact that when the film that you all have seen that was taken

May 31, 1983 was made, theattorney for thedefendant wasn't there. Thedefendant wasn't there,and that seemed to suggest bythe legal representative for thedefendant in this case that somethingwas a little fishy. The defendant in a lawsuit has thesame rights as theplaintiff. If they wanted tofilm Steven Rickerson, theycould have filmed Steven Rickerson. If theywanted, when Dr. Jackson

went out there November 16*^ and he watched an occupational therapy session, if they wanted to filmthat, they could have filmed it. The film was brought in to accurately depict and portray StevenRickerson as he is through no fault of his own.

Mr. Tobin said that this is notpleasant for metelling you that I think Steven will diewithinten years. Well, I suggest it is the opposite. It ispleasant for him. That is the whole crux ofhislawsuit that was developed with the October 31, 1983 letter from Dr. Jackson.

That is not a normal boy. Well, we all know that he is not a normal boy. The life expectancy



tables that you will hear from the Court and that you have already heard in the evidence talk about thejjfg expectancy of anaverage 13-year-old boy. The medical testimony supplied byme for your

edification, andforMr. Tobin's,was uncontradicted except by Dr. Jackson that given proper medicalcare, Steven will live a normal life expectancy.

Dr. Grady didnotcome into this courtroom and hold outhis right hand and saysee, Stevencan do that. It'sJust not accurate. But, with respect to the evidence, I will rely onyour -1 think youraverage age is49, and when the Court tells you that you can take into consideration the affairs and theexperiences oflife, I will rely on that. I will rely on your collective memories ofwhat the evidencewas. Any distortion, anything that was said by the legal representative for this defendant ormyself, Iwill leave to your collective judgments to sort out.

It was mentionedthat at the Rehabilitation Instituteof Chicago,Dr. Philip and his people train

family members and attendant to take care ofpeople. So, the conclusion by the legal representative isthat somebody inthe family -1 guess that means Dave Rickerson oran attendant - could take care ofSteven. Or, a young widow or a Divinitystudent.

It was Dr. Philip who testified that in his opinion - this is the man that trains attendants andfamily people - that is his opinion, Steven Rickerson needs the LPN care that he talked about. Heneeds the RN care, the physical, occupational and speech therapy. He said it, Flannigan said it andGanz said it. Dr. Eilers has arranged.

Mr. Tobin did not see any grimacing on the tape. We saw grimacing with the very first shotthat we saw this morning when she was manipulating his fingers. But, that isnot that important. Thepeople that came in have worked with Steven, have been with Steven. Iwill stand by their testimony.

They want you to cut it inhalf. Demetrio wants you to cut it in half. I specifically tell you Idon't want you to cut it in half. I don't want you to cut anickel off. I don't think this defendant, thiscorporation, should get one nickel off the money he owes. To cut itin half—and then he said, he hadthe audacity to say, after doing this to Steven, after killing his mother and killing his brother, they willlaugh all the way to the bank.

I suggest they will not laugh all the way to the bank. I suggest that that was the most indecentthing that has been said within this three-week period. They will laugh all the way to the bank.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard all the evidence in this case. Let me just say - and letme be corny for one minute —an awful lot ofpeople have taken care ofhim. An awful lot ofpeopleare about to take care of him. Inyour verdict, please - to be corny for one minute - be thumbs up.Let these people know that you cannot do what was done on August 31, 1981 and then hire some

rile://D;\arguments\Demetrioarg.htm 4/16/2001


clever lawyerwho is good with figures, who will come in two years later and throwsome figures

around and suggest that$2 million is fair, just and reasonable in lightof all the evidence thatyou

have seen in this courtroom. Or that, here, $50,000 for a nine year old or, here, $250,000. That

should take care of it and then they will laugh all the way to the bank.

I respectfullyask you to consider that the last 840 days has been a long time, but that the next

58 years is even a longer time.

And, I will add Dave Rickerson is going to die some day, just like all of us. And then who is

gong to care about Steven Rickerson? Who will be there?

What you do today will have an impact on the rest of this little boy*s life. What you do today

is the rest of his life because when Dave Rickerson drops dead or gets hit by a truck or whatever

happens to him,Steven Rickerson is all of a sudden alone in the world andwho is going to care?Jeffries isn't going to care, Tobin's not going to care,Hirt's not goingto care, Linke's notevengoing

to care. Nobody is going to care.

But, supply him, pursuant to the evidence in this lawsuit, the funds thathe willneed, and inaddition, give himwhat he deserves for thedisability, the physical painandthe uncontradictedtestimony. This little three-year-old who is thirteen years oldwho is locked into this body and isaware of his environment, givehim hisjust reward. Givehim thedecency of a verdict that is fair,necessarily substantial. We know it. But, it is fair and it is just and it is decent.

1 thank you for your consideration.

Click here to go back

Back to Index


Demetrio.htm 4/16/2001 - Trial Archivestrialarchives.org/pdfs/Closing Arguments - Child...Clickhere...

Documents

Transcript of Demetrio.htm 4/16/2001 - Trial Archivestrialarchives.org/pdfs/Closing Arguments - Child...Clickhere...