Opening+Statement

Opening Statement Robin and Sandra Hansbra v. Plane's Park & Polish LLC

May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, counsel. On April 18, 2008, every parent's worst nightmare became a reality for Robin and Sandra Hansbra: Their seventeen year old daughter, Jaya, was struck and killed by Reilly Blaker, who was driving back after a business lunch intoxicated, while she was crossing the street near her workplace. Now, Mr. & Mrs. Hansbra have to wake up every day knowing that their daughter is never going to come home. Sadly, their troubles could have been prevented if Parker Plane, Reilly Blaker's employer, would have taken appropriate action to regulate his employees. This case is really about Parker Plane's failure to perform his duties as an employer, his deception of others (namely Reilly Blaker himself), and his disregard for all but financial gain in the course of his company's running.

Let's go back in time to that day. It is eleven in the morning and Reilly Blaker, an employee of Plane's Park and Polish, an airport-based valet and detailing service, takes the company car out ot a business lunch. He, representing the company, meets up for lunch with Brody Crisdale, the owner of Maintain Oil Change, to negotiate for a potential business collaboration. At the restaurant, things seem to be going well, and Reilly and Brody each enjoy a few glasses of wine to celebrate their newly formed partnership.

However, they did not anticipate that the day would take a tragic turn after leaving the restaurant. As Reilly Blaker drives Brody Crisdale back to his hotel, at around 3: 30 p.m., he attempts to make a right turn onto Front Street. Unexpectedly, the light turns red and Reilly, unable to stop, hits Jaya Hansbra. The impact severs Jaya's spinal cord and she dies immediately from massive internal bleeding.

Although Reilly Blaker was the one who actually drove the car that killed Jaya Hansbra, under the legal principle of //respondeat superior//, which states that the employer is responsible for any crimes or wrongdoings committed by an employee within the scope of his employment, he himself is not liable civilly. Under the law, Reilly Blaker's actions would be within the scope of his employment if 1. Parker Plane has given him permission to do it 2. The time and place were close to where he had conducted business previously and 3. If the act was reasonably forseeable by Parker Plane.

As the plaintiffs of this case, we are going to prove to you that had Parker Plane fulfilled his duties as an employer, rather than operating his business to make financial gains at the expense of innocent people, the Hansbra family would not have been torn apart. In order to win the case, we must prove to you that Reilly Blaker was acting within the scope of his employment at PP&P by a preponderance of the evidence, or that it is more likely than not true. We are confident in our ability to meet this burden, and we are certain that you will return with the just decision, in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Today, to aid you in making the just decision, we will call forth two witnesses. Reilly Blaker himself will testify about the events leading up to his lunch meeting with Brody Crisdale and the "special" relationship he had with his boss, Parker Plane. He will also openly discuss his past issues, including an alcohol and opiate addiction, just as he did with Parker Plane when he was hired. Our second witness, Ms. Dylan Sabien, another former employee who Parker Plane affectionately referred to as his "eyes and ears in Harrisburg", will offer an inside view of the workplace climate at Plane's Park and Polish and share how she knew that Reilly Blaker was, indeed, not just another valet.

We will also present to you solid evidence that collaborates with our witnesses' accounts. You will see the very same employee manual that Parker Plane gave to all of his workers, and the true extent of Parker Plane's failure to uphold his duties, through both lack of discipline of the employees and his own flagrant violations of the rules will become clear to you. We will also show you the Memorandum of Understanding that both Reilly and Parker signed regarding the terms of Reilly's employment. A MoU is a bilateral agreement between two parties,in this case employer and employee,and when Parker Plane signed it, he agreed to fulfill his duties as an employer by enforcing its contents. It will be evident that Parker Plane failed to uphold his duties as he agreed to in the MoU, breaking the contract that bound him to his employee, Reilly Blaker.

As the trial goes on, it will become increasingly clear that had Parker Plane taken appropriate action to uphold his duty as an employer, an innocent life would have been spared. You, as jurors, also have an important duty: to listen to the testimony, to carefully weigh all the evidence, and to come back with the just and fair decision at the end of the trial. None of us can bring back seventeen-year-old Jaya Hansbra, just as none of us can ever truly make right the losses her family has suffered. The Hansbras will never see their daughter grow up; graduate from high school, get married, have children of her own, all because she was robbed of her life for the selfish and trivial motivation of financial gain. There is only one just decision in this case, and we are certain that you will find in favor of the Plaintiffs. Thank you.