McCrady — Trying the Case That Actually Exists
In May 2024, I served as first-chair trial counsel in McCrady, a personal injury case tried to a jury in Ada County, Boise, Idaho, before District Judge Steven Hippler.My partners Joe Horras and Ellen Smith assisted me at trial.
The case arose from a low-speed motor-vehicle impact and involved primarily chiropractic treatment.
This was not a catastrophic injury case.
We didn't try to make it one.
We tried the case that actually existed.
Not Every Injury Case Is Catastrophic
Personal injury cases come in all sizes.
Some involve devastating injuries, permanent disability, enormous medical expenses, and profound changes to a person's life.
Others involve real but more limited injuries.
McCrady was one of those cases.
The impact was relatively low speed. The treatment was primarily chiropractic. The evidence supported a more limited injury claim than the catastrophic cases we sometimes handle.
Our job was not to exaggerate it.
Our job was to present the evidence honestly, explain the injuries and treatment, and ask the jury to determine the fair value of what had actually occurred.
Credibility Matters
One of the disciplines of trying injury cases is learning that every case has to be evaluated on its own evidence.
A low-speed impact does not automatically mean that someone wasn't injured.
It also does not automatically mean that someone suffered a serious or permanent injury.
The evidence has to answer those questions.
Jurors bring common sense into the courtroom. They evaluate the collision, the medical evidence, the treatment, the witnesses, the duration of the symptoms, and the effect the injury actually had on the person sitting in front of them.
A trial lawyer's credibility matters enormously when asking a jury to make that evaluation.
In McCrady, we tried the case for what it was.
The jury returned a result that was consistent with the nature and extent of the injuries presented.
Trial Experience Is Built One Case at a Time
It would be easy to create a professional trial record containing only large verdicts and extraordinary cases.
That wouldn't be an accurate account of practicing as a trial lawyer.
Trial experience is accumulated one courtroom at a time.
Every jury teaches you something.
You learn about voir dire. Opening statement. Direct examination. Cross-examination. Medical evidence. Exhibits. Damages. Closing argument. Credibility. And, most importantly, how ordinary people actually evaluate a case.
Those lessons don't require a million-dollar claim.
In some ways, a smaller case can be particularly instructive because there is less room for drama to substitute for precision.
You have to identify what matters, prove it, and resist the temptation to ask the jury for more than the evidence supports.
The Client Still Gets a Trial
There is another reason McCrady belongs in my trial record.
A client with a smaller injury is still a client.
The fact that a case does not involve catastrophic damages does not mean the injury didn't matter to the person who experienced it.
At the same time, respecting a client does not require exaggerating the client's losses.
The objective is simpler.
Tell the truth about what happened.
Prove what the evidence supports.
Ask the jury for a fair result.
That is what Joe, Ellen, and I did in McCrady.
The jury's result was consistent with the injuries presented.
And the experience became another part of our development as trial lawyers.
Case: McCrady
Court: District Court, Ada County, Idaho
Location: Boise, Idaho
Judge: Hon. Steven Hippler
Trial: May 2024
Case Type: Personal Injury — Motor Vehicle Collision
Collision: Low-speed impact
Injuries/Treatment: Primarily chiropractic treatment
First-Chair Trial Counsel: William L. Smith
Trial Team: Joe Horras and Ellen Smith
Result: Jury verdict consistent with the nature and extent of the injuries presented.
William L. “Bill” Smith is an Idaho trial lawyer and founding partner of Smith Horras, P.A. His professional record includes civil jury trials, bench trials, and oral arguments before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends upon its own facts, evidence, law, and circumstances.