“And now you know why we are here” were the words that attorney Paul R. Kiesel used in rebuttal at the close of a ten day trial in Santa Rosa. Paul was reminding the jury of the defense lawyer’s opening statement two weeks earlier when the Defendant trucking company admitted full responsibility for the crash and it’s lawyer said “We want to make it right”. This personal injury trial focused on injuries that the Plaintiff sustained when his stopped pickup truck was rear-ended by the Defendant’s 45,000 pound Tractor-Trailer that was traveling at 45 miles per hour at the time of the impact. The driver of the pickup truck, who was 22 years of age at the time of the crash, suffered Compression Fractures of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Thoracic vertebrae, was confined to a body cast for 9 months, has undergone (and continues to need) post-accident medical care and treatment and he has and – for the rest of his life – will continue to experience a lifetime of daily constant pain. However, as the trial progressed, it became apparent to the jury that there was a sizeable gap between defense lawyer’s words and their true intentions. Not only did the defense lawyer disagree with the Victim’s expert witnesses during the trial, which included treating physicians from the Mayo Clinic and St. Jude’s Medical Center, the defense attorney ended up greatly disagreeing with the defense’s very own expert witnesses as to the costs of that lifetime of future medical care and the lost earning capacity that this young man sustained due to the Defendant’s own (admitted) negligence. Rather than “making it right” it became obvious to the jury that the defense was only attempting to minimize, reduce and avoid financial responsibility for the crippling injuries that its driver’s negligent operation of the Big-Rig caused. Because the defense lawyer and the defense of the case didn’t do so, it was left to the jury to “make it right,” and they did by returning this sizeable verdict on the Victim’s behalf.