Issuu

F A L L

N E B R A S K A A S S O C I AT I O N O F T R I A L AT T O R N E Y S

P R E S I D E N T ’ S

2 0 2 6

VOLUME 32, NO. 3 2026

M E S S A G E

The Remarkable Jury In 1670, a jury in London was ordered to convict two men. The defendants were William Penn and William Mead, Quakers charged after Penn preached to a crowd in the street. The judge wanted a guilty verdict. The jury did not give him one. So, the judge sent them back. They returned again without the verdict he wanted. The jurors were locked up without food or drink and pressured to change their decision. When they nevertheless returned a verdict of not guilty, the court fined them and ordered them imprisoned.

INSIDE Members Perspective.........4 NATA PAC...........................6 NATA PAC Contributors.......8 Who’s Driving...................10 Rigged Responsibility.......18 Practice Pointers..............24 Inside NATA..................... 26 Verdicts & Settlements.... 36 Young Lawyers................ 38 Washington Update..........42 Know Who to Call............ 45

Four of the jurors refused to pay, among them the jury’s foreman, Edward Bushell. He was held in Newgate Prison for over two months until he challenged his imprisonment and won his release. The resulting decision, now known as Bushell’s Case, established a principle we largely take for granted: jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they reach. Twelve ordinary people were starved, threatened, and imprisoned because they would not give those in authority the answer they wanted. And they still said no. Sixty-five years later, John Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was tried for publishing criticism of the colony’s royal governor. The government’s position was simple: Zenger had published the material, and that was enough. His lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, asked the jury to consider whether what Zenger published was true, and to exercise its own judgment rather than accept the government’s position. The jury acquitted him. The Zenger trial did not create the First Amendment as we know it, but it became an enduring symbol of freedom of the press and of something equally important: the power of ordinary citizens sitting as jurors to stand between an individual and the government. An ocean and two generations apart, both stories share an idea. The jury was becoming more than a way to resolve disputed facts. It was becoming a check on power. By the Revolution, the colonists understood exactly how much that mattered. Among the grievances against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was that the King had deprived the colonists “in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.” That complaint was not buried in a treatise on courtroom procedure. It appeared in a document explaining why thirteen colonies would separate from the most powerful empire in the world. The Constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 expressly protected the right to a jury in criminal prosecutions. It said nothing about civil juries. Americans noticed. As the document went to the states, opponents pressed the omission: they were being asked to approve a powerful new government with no guarantee that citizens would keep the right to have civil disputes decided by a jury. For people who had just fought a revolution against concentrated

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

power, that was not a minor oversight. Several states called for an amendment, and James Madison took up the demand in the First Congress. His draft provided that “in suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.” 1 Annals of Cong. 436 (1789). Inviolate. Not merely available, not merely customary. But the committee that redrafted his proposal struck that word, and what the states ratified in 1791 reads differently: in suits at common law, “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” U.S. Const. amend. VII; see 1 Annals of Cong. 760 (1789). Preserved is a careful word and it does real work. The generation that adopted the Bill of Rights was not creating a procedural preference; it was protecting something people had spent generations fighting to keep. But Madison’s word demanded more. Nebraska claimed it too. Article I, Section 6 of our Constitution provides: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.” And yet I sometimes wonder whether we have become so accustomed to juries that we have forgotten what is extraordinary about them. As trial lawyers, we talk about juries constantly: voir dire, instructions, verdict forms, burdens of proof, jury pools. The jury is such a familiar part of our work that it can begin to feel like one more component of the litigation process. It is not. The jury is not important because it guarantees that ordinary people will win. It is important because it guarantees that powerful people do not always get to decide. Twelve people with no institutional stake are given authority to weigh the evidence, judge credibility, apply the law, and decide a dispute between parties of vastly different wealth, influence, and power. That is an extraordinary arrangement, and it is why this history still matters in Nebraska courtrooms.

Think about the people who walk into our offices. Most do not arrive with institutional power. They have no legal department, no claims professionals, no lobbyists, no risk managers advising them before a dispute begins. They arrive with something simpler: a story about what happened to them. And more often than not, they have already tried to tell their story—to no avail. The injured person called the insurance company. The employee reported the problem to a supervisor. The patient asked the hospital for an explanation. The consumer complained. The family asked questions. Emails were sent, calls made, meetings requested. Sometimes people spend months or years asking someone with more power than they have to listen. Then they come to us. The civil justice system does something almost no other institution can do. It can require the other side to show up, require documents to be produced and questions answered, and put witnesses under oath. If the case reaches trial, it takes the final decision away from the institution that once had the ability simply to say no. Then we hand that decision to people with no connection to either side: a farmer from outside Columbus, a teacher from Lincoln, a nurse from North Platte, a retiree from Omaha. There is something deeply democratic about that. It is also why defending the jury system cannot fairly be characterized as defending plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ lawyers. Juries do not always agree with us. Every trial lawyer has learned that lesson, or eventually will. The point of a jury is not that our clients are entitled to win. The point is that neither side is entitled to decide the case for itself. That distinction matters when we talk about the pressures on the civil jury today. Mandatory arbitration can determine, long before any dispute exists, that a jury will never hear it. Immunities keep certain claims from reaching a jury. Procedural barriers end cases before citizens hear the evidence. And damage caps let jurors spend days or weeks hearing testimony, weighing evidence, and determining the full measure of the harm caused, only to replace part of their verdict with a number chosen before they ever entered the courtroom. Nebraska lawyers need not look abroad for an example. In Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health System, a jury awarded $5,625,000 to a family whose son was born with severe brain damage caused by medical negligence. The statutory cap reduced the judgment to $1,250,000. Our Supreme Court upheld the cap against a challenge under Article I, Section 6, reasoning that the jury’s function is factfinding and that the remedy is “a question of law, not fact,” which the court applies only after the jury has finished its work. Each of these issues has its own legal and policy arguments. But they all raise the same basic question: who gets to decide? In 1670, Edward Bushel and his fellow jurors answered that question by refusing to surrender their judgment to the court. In 1735, the Zenger jury answered it by refusing to simply accept the government’s position. In 1776, the colonists identified the loss of jury trials as one of the abuses of a distant, oppressive government. In 1791, Americans

F A L L

insisted that the right to a civil jury be preserved in the Bill of Rights. And when Nebraskans wrote our own Constitution, they chose to say that the right would remain inviolate. That history gives weight to the third commitment in NATA’s mission statement, alongside improving trial practice and preserving the justice system: “the protection of the constitutional right of trial by jury.” We are not protecting an antiquated courtroom tradition. We are protecting a deliberate decision, made again and again over centuries, that some questions are too important to leave entirely in the hands of institutions, officials, or people who already possess power. We entrust them instead to citizens. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that arrangement has become. Every week, people report for jury duty in Nebraska courthouses, leaving their families, jobs, and routines to walk into cases they know nothing about, involving people they have never met. Lawyers may spend years litigating a case. Corporations and government entities may bring enormous resources to it. Judges will decide important questions of law along the way. But on the questions reserved for the jury, the judgment belongs to ordinary citizens who walked in with no stake in the outcome. More than 350 years separate Edward Bushell’s jury from the people who report for jury duty in Nebraska today. Almost everything about the courtroom around them has changed. The law has changed. The cases have changed. The institutions have changed. The world outside the courthouse has changed almost beyond recognition. But that one remarkable idea has endured: when the stakes are high and the facts are disputed, we still trust ordinary citizens to decide. Jennifer Turco Meyer President

2 0 2 4

PRESIDENT Jennifer Turco Meyer, Omaha PRESIDENT ELECT Elizabeth Govaerts, Lincoln SECRETARY Cameron Guenzel, Lincoln TREASURER & CONTINUING EDUCATION CHAIR Danny Leavitt, Omaha IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Mark Richardson, Lincoln BOARD OVERSIGHT CHAIR Peter C. Wegman, Lincoln NATA PAC CHAIR Mark Richardson, Lincoln Matt Lathrop, Omaha DIRECTORS James C. Bocott, North Platte Aaron Brown, Omaha Eric Brown, Lincoln Nathan Bruner, Kearney John F. Carroll, Omaha Gregory Coffey, Lincoln Sam Colwell, Lincoln Patrick Cooper, Omaha Tara DeCamp, Omaha Joseph Dowding, Lincoln Michelle Dreesen, Omaha Erin Fox, Omaha Nancy Freburg, Kearney

Daniel Friedman, Lincoln Mandy Gruhlkey, Omaha Matthew Knowles, Omaha Kyle Long, Scottsbluff Michael Moyer, Madison Brody Ockander, Lincoln Ross Pesek, Omaha Jeffrey Putnam, Omaha Jon Rehm, Lincoln Mitchell Stehlik, Grand Island Adam Tabor, Omaha Julie Tabor, Papillion Joshua Yambor, Omaha

PAST PRESIDENTS

serving on the Board 2025-2026

editor

Deborah Neary Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys 6173 Center Street Omaha, NE 68106 402-435-5526

designer Heidi Mihelich cre8ivenergy

The Prairie Barrister is published quarterly by the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys. Inquiries regarding submission of articles and advertising should be directed to Deborah Neary, Executive Director. The statements and opinions in editorials or articles reflect the views of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of NATA. Publication of advertising does not imply endorsement. © 2026 Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, Inc. Contents cannot be reproduced without permission.

nata@NebraskaTrial.com

@NETrialAttnys

www.NebraskaTrial.com

Jason G. Ausman, Omaha Todd Bennett, Lincoln Michael F. Coyle, Omaha Mandy L. Larson, Papillion Steven M. Lathrop, Omaha Clarence Mock, Oakland Robert R. Moodie, Lincoln George H. Moyer, Jr. Madison Kathleen M. Neary, Lincoln Robert G. Pahlke, Scottsbluff EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Deborah Neary

James Paloucek, North Platte Vincent M. Powers, Lincoln Julie Shipman-Burns, Lincoln Andrew D. Sibbernsen, Omaha E. Terry Sibbernsen, Omaha Dan Thayer, Grand Island Jonathan Urbom, Lincoln Peter C. Wegman, Lincoln Christopher P. Welsh, Omaha Brock Wurl, North Platte

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

M e m b e r

P e r s p e c t i v e

The Zeitgeist of a Trial Lawyer

by Danny Leavitt

Let’s be honest: practicing law is hard. The prospect of failure is all around us. Opposing parties and opposing counsel constantly cast doubt on our theories and ideas. Judges rule against us. And the public, in their office as jurors, can find against us. What does one make of this? How do we maintain the momentum to keep doing what we intended when we first started practicing? I think it is done in part by remembering the zeitgeist of a trial lawyer.

Recently, I read a book that explains the meaning of the word zeitgeist in various contexts. The word is German and means “spirit of the age” or “times” (geist, spirit, like ghost + zeit, which means time). The thought occurred to me: what is the zeitgeist of a trial lawyer? If the zeitgeist represents the spirit of the time (i.e. the prevailing attitudes, behaviors, motivations, intentions, and desires of the time), what has that been for trial lawyers over time? And what does it mean for us now and moving forward? Historically, trial lawyers in the colonial era communicated their understanding through rhetoric, presence, and wit, all of which mattered most back then. In the 17th and 18th Centuries, reading law became more important while rhetorical skills remained important. Think Abraham Lincoln. He was a voracious reader, yet he was a formidable orator. Then the case system was introduced and eventually spread to most law schools. Finally, to practice law in most jurisdictions, lawyers had to graduate from an accredited law school and sit for the bar exam, which we’re all familiar with. In the 20th Century the zeitgeist of a trial lawyer has been influenced by various organizations or media. Shows dramatize the courtroom and inflict the public with an unreal sense of what happens in that sanctified, revered place, the courtroom.

How about in the last few years, you ask? Yes, the zeitgeist demanding most our attention is AI. Its advent and development are unmatched in the history of the world. AI is changing the practice of law—how we think, how we write, how we plan, how we operate our businesses, and so much more. Add to that trial demonstratives, third-party vendors with charts, visuals, re-creations, and videos that require sophisticated, visual storytelling instead of long-winded lectures. Zoom depositions, webinars, and on and on. Here’s my advice for the coming days to influence the zeitgeist of the trial lawyer. Let us not forget to use our minds; let us not forget to use common sense; let us not forget to lead with our hearts—the origin of our motivations, intentions, and desires. May we keep reading cases even though briefs can be produced in seconds. Rely on the zeitgeist of the past while adopting the zeitgeist of the present; be nimble, flexible, and accepting of change and development. May we rely on primary sources like we learned in law school. With the emotional demands of trial, remember that we can only control what we can control. With the prevailing trends of the day, it will be easy for us to have less human interaction than we’ve ever had. It will be easy for the trial lawyer to press forward without regard to the real impact we can have on our clients’ lives. Let us not become like the self-check-out line at a grocery store that decreases human interaction. Offer the bespoke representation our clients deserve. This article is the product of my own writing, although I read and researched using AI and other source materials, including a hard-cover book. That’s what being an advocate looks like in our day. May the zeitgeist of the trial lawyer include real thinking, real feelings, and a passion for serving those around us, and not merely thinking how high non-economic damages can be. That’s what the zeitgeist of a trial lawyer should look and feel like.

TRISTAR REPORTING, A VERITEXT COMPANY, PROUDLY SUPPORTS

NATA

BETTER TOGETHER SAME GREAT PEOPLE. SAME GREAT SERVICE.

With EVEN MORE enhanced offerings and technologies coming your way!

TriStar Reporting & Veritext Legal Solutions TriStar Reporting and Veritext Legal Solutions have united, bringing together unsurpassed service, advanced technology, nationwide presence and superior court reporters.

World Class Data Security Smart AI Solutions Video Synchronization Remote Depositions Offices Throughout North America

Snap Scheduling Document Repositories Exhibit Capture Paperless Depositions Cutting-Edge Deposition Suites is now

T H E

P R A I R I E

N A T a

B A R R I S T E R

P A C

by Mark Richardson, NATA PAC Chair

It’s Election Time! General election season is officially in full swing. As election day approaches, NATA PAC’s mission is to keep its members as informed as reasonably possible. To that end, let us set out the goals of Nebraska PAC this election season and recap where the races stand coming out of the primary.

NATA PAC Strategy NATA PAC supports candidates who demonstrate integrity, electability, and a commitment to preserving equal access to justice, protecting the constitutional right to trial by jury, and maintaining a fair and accessible civil justice system for all Nebraskans. In addition to considering candidates’ positions on issues affecting civil justice, NATA PAC values individuals who are willing to build constructive relationships with NATA members, listen to diverse perspectives, and approach public service with professionalism, fairness, and respect for the rule of law. We are grateful to the many NATA PAC contributors whose support allows the PAC to participate meaningfully in the legislative process.

Connecting with Senators/Candidates The 2026 Nebraska legislative primary election largely confirmed the expected November matchups while highlighting several races likely to be closely contested. Although legislative races in Nebraska are officially nonpartisan, the primary results provide useful insight into candidate strength, voter engagement, and districts that are expected to receive significant attention during the general election. Several sitting senators who have been supportive of NATA’s mission earned strong primary results, including Senators John Fredrickson, Merv Riepe, Danielle Conrad, George Dungan, and Patty Pansing Brooks. As NATA PAC considers its financial support of candidates, PAC Chair Mark Richardson, with a huge assist from immediate pastPAC Chair Matt Lathrop and PAC Trustees, are working with NATA’s lobbyists to help candidates understand the association’s legislative priorities, including: • Preserving the constitutional right to trial by jury. • Protecting equal access to Nebraska’s civil justice system. • Promoting accountability for corporate negligence. • Defending an independent judiciary and the rule of law. • Supporting policies that advance fairness, transparency, and justice. This election cycle, NATA PAC has expanded its candidate outreach by inviting NATA members who live in a candidate’s legislative district to participate in meetings whenever possible. These conversations help candidates better understand the role of Nebraska’s civil justice system while fostering long-term relationships between legislators and the attorneys who serve their constituents. This participation has had a meaningful impact for NATA’s connection with existing senators and candidates out on the trail. NATA believes that effective advocacy begins with informed dialogue and trusted relationships. By engaging NATA members directly in the candidate evaluation process, the association strengthens its grassroots network and promotes thoughtful discussion about the importance of a fair and accessible civil justice system.

F A L L

2 0 2 6

NEBRASKA 2026 LEGISLATIVE PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS If you are curious about the specific primary results from the various legislative districts, we are here to help! If you live in one of these districts, we would welcome your involvement in supporting and educating senators and candidates on both sides of the (nonpartisan) aisle. You can contact Mark Richardson or Deborah Neary if you’d like more information on specific districts and how you can help. CANDIDATES ADVANCING TO THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL ELECTION PRIMARY ELECTION HELD MAY 12, 2026 The table below shows the top two candidates in each Nebraska legislative primary and the percentage of the total district vote received by each. Districts 22, 40, 44, and 46 had only one candidate listed in the official primary results. DISTRICT FIRST CANDIDATE

VOTE % SECOND CANDIDATE

VOTE % TOTAL VOTES

LD2

Dean Helmick

48.1%

Caitlin Knutson

34.7%

9,732

LD4

Cindy Maxwell-Ostdiek

53.4%

R. Brad von Gillern

46.6%

9,800

LD6

Patrick Leahy

59.3%

Nate Ostdiek

40.7%

8,367

LD8

Erin Feichtinger

65.7%

Josh Livingston

18.0%

8,186

LD10

Cindy Johnson

60.1%

Rebecca Rens

39.9%

7,073

LD12

Merv Riepe

39.3%

Christy Knorr

36.6%

5,794

LD14

SuAnn Witt

42.5%

Bill Bowes

33.9%

6,576

LD16

Ted Japp

63.0%

Cindy Chatt

37.0%

8,246

LD18

Jess Goldoni

44.5%

Taylor Royal

32.6%

7,727

LD20

John Fredrickson

59.9%

Chris Anderson

25.2%

10,233

LD22

Dawson Brunswick

100%

No second candidate listed

4,938

LD24

Jana Hughes

75.1%

Dan Winter

24.9%

6,838

LD26

George Dungan

72.4%

Tobias Howard

27.6%

6,102

LD28

Patty Pansing Brooks

79.7%

Colby L. Woodson

13.9%

6,792

LD30

Cally Ideus

56.4%

Janet M. Bock

43.6%

10,506

LD32

Mark Schoenrock

60.9%

Shay Smith

39.1%

7,410

LD34

Loren Lippincott

56.2%

Ben Blodgett

27.5%

8,211

LD36

Darin Tompkins

52.9%

Rick Holdcroft

47.1%

5,515

LD 38

Tim Anderson

34.6%

Janell Anderson Ehrke

31.0%

9,053

LD 40

Barry DeKay

100%

No second candidate listed

9,492

LD 41

Joe Johnson

44.4%

Jeremy Heneger

28.9%

7,236

LD 42

Mike Jacobson

74.2%

Shaylee S. Scranton

25.8%

6,533

LD 44

Teresa Ibach

100%

No second candidate listed

4,861

LD 46

Danielle Conrad

100%

No second candidate listed

2,735

LD 48

Brian Hardin

61.3%

Jessica M. Landers

18.8%

4,680

Source: Nebraska Secretary of State, 2026 Primary Election Official Results, Legislature contests; results portal updated June 1, 2026. Percentages were calculated from the total votes reported for each district and rounded to one decimal place. Note: Nebraska legislative elections are nonpartisan. In a contested primary, the two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election.

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

NATA PAC CONTRIBUTORS NATA PAC is the political arm of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys. It was established as a vehicle by which Nebraska trial lawyers could encourage and support candidates for public office who believe in ensuring the rights of the citizens of Nebraska by preserving the advocacy system. THANKS to all of NATA PAC’s continued supporters:

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN $2,400 -$3,599

JUSTICE CLUB $20,000 AND OVER ANNUALLY

Abboud Law Firm, Omaha James C. Bocott, North Platte Greg Garland, Omaha Mandy L. Larson, Papillion

Robert G. Pahlke, Scottsbluff Mark R. Richardson, Lincoln Peter C. Wegman, Lincoln

Atwood Law P.C., L.L.O., Lincoln

ROSCOE POUND CENTURY CLUB $12,000 - $19,999 8

SOWER’S CLUB $4,800 - $11,999 Ausman Law Firm, Omaha Berry Law, Omaha Dowd & Corrigan LLC, Omaha Dowding, Dowding, & Dowding Law Offices, Lincoln Hauptman, O’Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C., Omaha Inserra Kelley Cooper Sewell, Omaha Law Office of Matthew A. Lathrop, Omaha Miller Grell Law Group, PC LLO, Lincoln Paloucek, Herman & Wurl Law, North Platte Sibbernsen Law Firm, P.C., Omaha Urbom Maaske Law, Lincoln Welsh & Welsh, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha

GEORGE W. NORRIS $3,600 - $4,799 James Cada, Lincoln Chaloupka Law LLC, Scottsbluff Elizabeth Govaerts, Lincoln

$1,200 - $2,399 Todd D. Bennett, Lincoln Aaron Brown Injury Law, Omaha Eric R. Chandler, Omaha Conway, Pauley & Johnson, P.C., Hastings Timothy R. Engler, Lincoln Gallner & Pattermann, P.C., Council Bluffs, IA Mandy M. Gruhlkey, Omaha James R. Harris, Lincoln Steven H. Howard, Omaha Danny Leavitt, Omaha Monzon Guerra & Associates, Lincoln Robert R. Moodie, Lincoln Holly T. Morris, Lincoln

Kathleen M. Neary, Lincoln Brody J. Ockander, Lincoln Vincent M. Powers, Lincoln Jeffrey Putnam, Omaha Shayla Reed, Omaha Jon Rehm, Lincoln Rensch & Rensch Law, PC, LLO, Omaha Stephen A. Sael, Lincoln Terrence J. Salerno, Omaha Julie Shipman-Burns, Lincoln William V. Steffens, Broken Bow Audrey R. Svane, Lincoln Jennifer Turco Meyer, Omaha Amy L. Van Horne, Omaha James R. Walz, Omaha

CONTRIBUTORS John W. Ballew, Lincoln Bruce H. Brodkey, Omaha Gregory R. Coffey, Lincoln Sam Colwell, Lincoln Michael F. Coyle, Omaha John C. Fowles, Grand Island Jason P. Galindo, Lincoln Tracy Hightower-Henne, Omaha Hightower Reff Law, Omaha Nicholas Jantzen, Lincoln

Tod A. McKeone, Lexington Clarence E. Mock, Oakland Ross Pesek, Omaha Jeffrey Putnam, Omaha Brianne Rohner Erickson, Lincoln Jacob M. Steinkemper, Omaha Adam C. Tabor, Omaha Jacqueline M. Tessendorf, Columbus

F A L L

2 0 2 6

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

F A L L

2 0 2 46

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

F A L L

2 0 2 6

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

Continued page 16

F A L L

2 0 2 4

The records tell a story. We make it litigation-ready. Boutique legal nurse consulting for plaintiff and defense attorneys. Clinical precision on the cases that can't afford gaps.

SERVICES

Medical Malpractice Merit Analysis Catastrophic Personal Injury Expert Witness Coordination Medical Cost Projections

Demand Letter & Settlement Support

MoonstruckLNC.com

Rachel Toland MSN, RN, NE-BC, RNC-OB, CCM, MCP-C CEO & Founder

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

company’s regular insurance wouldn’t cover it. Bring direct negligence claims for hiring unsafe carriers. File vicarious liability claims against the company that exerted operational control. Even when the FMCSA has granted broker authority, courts recognize that actors remain liable when they negligently select unsafe carriers.20 The FMCSA authority is the floor—not the ceiling—for safety.

Key Takeaways

As the trucking industry evolves, plaintiff attorneys must keep pace. Focus on these five principles. Training is essential. Carriers must teach drivers how to safely use new systems. Autonomation is not a shield. Companies remain liable for foreseeable risks from unproven technology. AI creates evidence. Use ignored alerts and override logs to build negligence claims. The corporate veil is pierceable. Untangle corporate webs, expose true control, and reach solvent defendants in discovery. No assets does not equate to no accountability. Even collapsed carriers leave footprints that lead to the actors with real control. Going forward, the defense playbook will focus on obscuring the truth, delaying discovery, misdirecting those seeking accountability, and collapsing under liability. Our role is to cut through the noise, follow the data, and hold the real decision-makers responsible. As advocates for safety on our highways, we carry the responsibility of ensuring that technological progress doesn’t come at the cost of human lives. With vigilance and strategy, we can continue to fight for justice—even in an era with driverless trucks and shell companies. Matthew E. Wright is a managing partner of The Law Firm for Truck Safety in Franklin, Tenn., and can be reached at matt@truckaccidents.com.

Notes

1. 49 U.S.C. §30106(a) (2005) (“An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being

the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if—(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).”). 2. 49 U.S.C. §14501(b)(1) (2015) (“[N]o State or political subdivision thereof and no intrastate agency or other political agency of 2 or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to intrastate rates, intrastate routes, or intrastate services of any freight forwarder or broker.”). 3. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Automatic Emergency Braking Systems, 82 Fed. Reg. 8391 (proposed Jan. 25, 2017) (codified at 49 C.F.R. §571). 4. Brody Day, Deleting Standard Safety Technologies. Is It Really Worth It?, Bendix, www.knowledge-dock.com/ blog/deleting-standard-safety-technologies-is-itreally-worth-it. 5. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Nat’l Highway Transp. & Safety Admin., Safety Recommendation H-15-008 (June 8, 2015), data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-15-008. 6. 49 C.F.R. §391.1 (2025). 7. Jason Cannon, Tech, Driver Training All Part of Collision Avoidance, Com. Carrier J. (Nov. 28, 2016), tinyurl.com/ mr3mn54p. 8. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2022 Disengagement Reports (2022), www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicleindustry-services/autonomous-vehicles/ disengagement-reports/. 9. See, e.g., MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050, 1053 (N.Y. 1916). 10. Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 261 F. 878, 886–87 (2d Cir. 1919). 11. See, e.g., How Truckers Use the Amazon Relay App, Amazon Relay (Apr. 8, 2024), relay.amazon.com/blog/ how-truckers-use-the-amazon-relay-mobile-app; Upgrade to the Leading Dash Cam Solution, Samsara, get.samsara.com/dash-cams. 12. Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615, 618 (Va. 1999) (The jury could reasonably find that the defendant’s conduct, given his specialized training, showed a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, justifying an award of punitive damages.). 13. See e.g., Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536, 543–44 (D. Md. 2004). 14. 49 U.S.C. §30106(a). 15. 49 U.S.C. §30106(a)(2). 16. 49 C.F.R. §390.5 (2025) (“Shipper means a person who tenders property to a motor carrier or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for transportation in interstate commerce, or who tenders hazardous materials to a motor carrier or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for transportation in interstate or intrastate commerce.”). 17. 49 U.S.C. §13102(23)(b) (2008). 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. See, e.g., The Restatement (Second) of Torts §411 (Am. L. Inst. 1965).

TRIAL® || Feb r u ar y 2026

ESTIMATING LOSSES IN PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH CASES

• Over 20 years of experience • Professor of Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln • Plaintiff and defense clients • Testimony in state and federal court

“David Rosenbaum is responsive, thorough, understandable, credible and experienced. He’s one of the best forensic economists in the region. I highly recommend his expertise.” —Repeat Client

402.617.4077 David@RosenbaumEconomics.com RosenbaumEconomics.com

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

RIGGED RESPON

SIBILITY

T ra n s p o r ta t i o n | | Rigged Responsibility T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

B 20

ig changes have come to the trucking industry: Automation, artificial intelligence, and “assetless” motor carriers have transformed roadway safety and the legal landscape for crash victims. The traditional trucking model—where a company owns trucks, employs drivers, and insures its fleet—is an endangered species. In its place, we now see Assetless carriers that don’t own or operate trucks and often lack adequate insurance Shell companies designed to shield liability Low-wage, high-turnover drivers working with algorithm-driven dispatch and semiautonomous vehicles These shifts create new challenges for plaintiffs— but also new opportunities. Defense attorneys rely on complex business models and legal doctrines like the Graves Amendment (attempting to act as vehicle lessors of equipment to affiliated operating motor carriers),1 the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) (attempting to argue that defendant transportation companies are immune from liability because the FAAAA preempts state tort law),2 and other broker defenses (such as de facto motor carriers claiming to be immune brokers hiring subcontractors) to blur control and deflect liability. But every digital system leaves data trails, and every corporate arrangement includes responsibilities. These are five major trends—and practical discovery strategies to expose liability and advocate effectively for your clients.

Crash Avoidance Technology

Crash avoidance technology is no longer optional—it’s nearly standard across modern truck fleets. This technology includes Forward-collision warnings Automatic emergency braking (AEB) Lane-departure warnings Onboard cameras Driver monitoring algorithms that look for inattentive or distracted driving In 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recognized AEB as a lifesaving technology.3 Yet, some manufacturers promote crash mitigation systems (CMS) as standard while simultaneously offering delete credits, which allow

36 Febr u a r y 2 0 2 6 | | TRIAL®

carriers to buy trucks without these safety systems.4 Even so, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that all major truck manufacturers install crash avoidance systems as an industry standard since at least 2015.5 Safety-enhancing technology can reduce risk, but only if drivers are trained to use it properly. Experienced drivers may be qualified to drive standard 18-wheelers, but motor carriers must train them to safely operate commercial vehicles with new technology.6 Safety technology is not a substitute for driver vigilance; it requires effective, mandatory training. Motor carriers must also stay informed on how to safely operate changing crash avoidance technology. Crashes can occur because drivers over-relied on automated braking, ignored system alerts, or misunderstood how a CMS functions.7 For example, an 18-wheeler using AEB may brake harder than expected during automatic emergency braking. If the 18-wheeler is following too closely, slamming on the brakes may not be enough. Motor carriers must train drivers to properly manage speed and following distance to safely handle sudden stops. They must also know how to respond to system warnings—and how to respond to a variety of situations, such as how to override AEB when a hazard clears and a sudden stop is unsafe. If a truck lacks safety technology—or the driver wasn’t trained to use it—liability may attach, especially when manufacturers offered safety features but carriers opted out. Similarly, when equipment dealers and manufacturers allow—or even encourage—the deletion of crash avoidance technology, liability can attach to those dealers and manufacturers via negligence or products liability claims. Discovery strategy. When improper use of crash avoidance technology contributed to injuries resulting from rear-end crashes or lane departures, request the trucking company’s training manuals, policies, curriculum, and acknowledgments (including signatures from drivers that they attended training or similar sign-in sheets) to help understand whether the carriers had or implemented any driver training on the proper use of crash avoidance technology. Obtain event data recorder (EDR) logs and telematics to show which warnings the driver or motor carrier employer ignored or overrode. Consider whether the motor carrier ignored warnings on a PREVIOUS SPREAD: ORBON ALIJA/GETTY IMAGES

F A L L

fleetwide basis that could also support that they were on notice of reckless conduct and failed to react appropriately. If you can lay this foundation, jurors may be able to consider imposing punitive damages. Focus on the data for the fleet, not just for the crash at issue—even if the available data applies only to the type of crash that your client experienced. Depose the carrier’s safety officers about the scope of training it provides. Did training modules provide drivers with proper explanations about warnings and override conditions? Did the carrier itself understand how to adequately relay this information to its drivers? Common law negligent training and supervision claims remain powerful tools. If you frame your client’s case around training deficiencies, you can push back against defendants’ attempts to shift responsibility to your client or the manufacturers.

2 0 2 4

vehicle wheels.10 Likewise, plaintiff attorneys are in the early stages of filing claims to hold those dealers and equipment manufacturers accountable when they allow motor carriers to deselect safety features for credit.

AI Systems

Artificial intelligence now drives critical trucking functions, including load assignments, route optimization, fatigue monitoring, and predictive maintenance. 11 Yet AI doesn’t eliminate responsibility—it creates discoverable data. When motor carriers ignore warning signs of risky drivers (such as driver actions, inattention, and signs of fatigue) that algorithms and driver-facing

Autonomous Vehicles

Semiautonomous and autonomous trucks promise fuel efficiency and decreased labor costs but still rely on human intervention. During disengagements, control of the vehicle returns to the driver—sometimes unexpectedly. In 2022, California logged nearly 600 disengagements in commercial vehicle testing.8 Even with advanced features, motor carriers must train drivers to retake control safely during emergencies, understand when the system will disengage, and recognize and respond to system failure. Without robust training and oversight, transitions between manual and autonomous modes create new risks. Discovery strategy. In cases that involve autonomous trucks, request disengagement reports, operational logs, and crash data. Depose corporate reps on autonomous system training. Consider naming as defendants manufacturers and developers whose systems failed or who deemed standard safety equipment optional. Common law recognizes that a manufacturer isn’t necessarily negligent because a product lacks a particular safety feature.9 But when a manufacturer intentionally chooses not to include a standard safety feature—or when a motor carrier fails to provide adequate precautions or safety training—courts have found them responsible. The same principle applied a century ago in cases involving defective VITPHO/GETTY IMAGES

Safety technology is not a substitute for human vigilance. It requires effective, mandatory training. cameras flagged, they may be liable for resulting crashes. Also, dispatchers and drivers increasingly renegotiate or sell loads through platforms like WhatsApp and Signal, creating informal but relevant evidence. Data showing the motor carrier’s inaction can help establish that the carrier had notice and ignored the warning, as well as grounds for reckless indifference to seek punitive or exemplary damages.12 Discovery strategy. Request all AI outputs, including ignored warnings, overridden alerts, predictive maintenance logs, and load assignments. Subpoena dispatcher and driver communications, especially those where they informally reassigned loads. You also should obtain override logs showing ignored safety warnings. TRIAL® | | Febr u a r y 2 0 2 6

T ra n s p o r ta t i o n | | Rigged Responsibility T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

Use data to tie decisions to the carrier. Control drives liability. Operational control—especially via digital platforms—may make a party a motor carrier.13

Complex Corporate Structures

Carriers often exist as a web of LLCs. One LLC owns the trucks. Another leases drivers. A third LLC handles logistics. A fourth serves as a holding company. These companies are designed to frustrate discovery, with expired Department of Transportation (DOT) numbers, fake addresses, and shared branding to hide true control. Some operations also use offshore or layered captive insurance to further shield liability. Still, the Graves Amendment limits only vicarious liability for leasing companies, not direct negligence.14 Defendants often argue that liability rests only with the undercapitalized company with no assets—the one designed to collapse under the weight of a judgment. These carriers can vanish when plaintiffs bring claims against them. Courts are receptive to piercing the corporate veil— as long as you can establish that the companies have common branding, shared officers, intermingled finances, and vicarious liability when those supposedly separate companies exercise control. Discovery strategy. Use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions to map corporate relationships. Subpoena intercompany contracts, leases, and email communication. Hire forensic accountants to trace cross-collateralization and financial flows. The corporate veil is not a license to do wrong.15 Courts are willing to pierce it when you show shared ownership, officers, branding, and control. Don’t let shell companies serve as fall guys. Trace the control to the real defendant.

motor vehicle transportation for compensation and, importantly, “transportation” is not limited to the physical transport of cargo using motor vehicles.17 Instead, federal law defines “transportation” broadly as “services related to that movement, including arranging for, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration, icing, ventilation, storage, handling, packing, unpacking, and interchange of passengers and property.”18 Any services involved in moving passengers or property—such as packing or storing property—fall under this umbrella.19 Knowing the distinction between a shipper and a motor carrier is critical to building your client’s case. Assetless carriers exist solely to insulate upstream companies from liability. They often are shell companies with a DOT number and minimal insurance. They collapse upon being sued, leaving victims without recourse. But these entities leave digital footprints. Insurance policies, broker agreements, safety audits, driver qualification files, and dispatch data can expose the companies truly in control—those with actual assets and real responsibility. Discovery strategy. To uncover the true actors, scrutinize bills of lading, rate sheets, dispatch confirmations, and master transportation agreements. The puppet master is often the company calling itself a “shipper” or “broker.” Look at the role of the so-called shipper. Did it do more than tender cargo to a carrier? If so, how did that company exercise control of the method, means, and manner of transporting the cargo? Examine broker agreements to deduce operational control. Determine whether the broker exerted enough control to meet the definition of a “carrier.” Identify insured parties using FMCSA MCS-90 forms, which is an insurance endorsement that trucking companies must attach to their insurance policy if they’re hauling goods across state lines. A safety net, the MCS-90 guarantees victims of trucking crashes compensation, even if the trucking

Autonomation is not a shield. Companies remain liable for foreseeable risks from unproven technology.

‛No-Asset’ Carriers

Federal law defines “motor carrier” by a function—not a title. Shippers tender cargo to motor carriers.16 Motor carriers provide

38 Feb ru a r y 20 2 6 | | TRIAL®

DEEPBLUE4YOU/GETTY IMAGES

F A L L

Key Takeaways

Notes

2 0 2 4

TRIAL® || Febru a r y 2 0 2 6

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

P R A C T I C E

P O I N T E R S

by Vince Powers

Be Curious Most of us practice alone or alongside only a handful of other lawyers. That structure has real advantages, but it also limits our exposure to new ideas and to better techniques for both office management and the practice of law—advantages our colleagues in larger firms enjoy as a matter of course. To compensate, we have to be deliberate about how we learn.

An important habit is curiosity: a genuine interest in the law itself and in the day-to-day workings of the court system. Reading the advance sheets each Tuesday and Friday should be treated as mandatory. They contain the answers—favorable, unfavorable, or somewhere in between—and often the payoff is immediate. Many of us have read a case on a Tuesday or Friday morning and, by that afternoon, submitted a letter to the court citing the holding in support of a pending motion. Other decisions track the steady evolution of how we practice: the locality rule in medical negligence cases, the significance of a final order, and the requirements for perfecting an appeal, from filing the notice of appeal to writing the brief. Nearly every month, the advance sheets teach a lesson worth keeping. A second habit—one that unfortunately fell away during the pandemic and is worth reviving—is simply watching other lawyers work. Before or after your own hearing, step into another courtroom and observe a bench or jury trial for an hour. It makes no difference whether the case is criminal or civil; the lessons carry over. Watch how the jury reacts when one or both lawyers object repeatedly. Notice how the judge runs the courtroom. Is it a “userfriendly” court or a “by-the-book” court? You are far better off learning what a judge expects before your trial than discovering it in the middle of one. New lawsuits are reported constantly in the newspapers and the commercial legal journals. Over lunch, pull up the case on the court’s electronic filing system and read the pleadings. Nebraska has a number of very good lawyers who excel at drafting complaints. I do not mean the current fashion for “press-release” pleadings—the ones that run on for pages, packed with irrelevant detail meant to catch a reporter’s eye. I mean well-pleaded legal theories you may not have considered, or may not have known how to plead. Any of us can draft an automobile-collision complaint in our sleep; a claim for tortious interference with contract is another matter. Make a point, too, of reading the occasional judicial opinion granting or denying summary judgment in a tort case. The parties’ briefs are public record, and, again, this state has some excellent legal writers. There is much to learn from a capable defense brief moving for summary judgment in a premises-liability case, or in a

case turning on whether the parties formed a joint venture or whether a driver was an independent contractor. Sooner or later, most of these issues will surface in your own cases. One of the genuine pleasures of this work is that no two days are alike. You never know who will call next, or with a claim you have never handled before—so it pays to be well informed. The new disclosure rules are already generating opinions on what constitutes an “adequate disclosure.” If you learn of such an opinion, read it. Jury instructions are another underused resource. They, too, are public record. What is the proper instruction in an underinsured- or uninsured-motorist case? How is a jury instructed in a slip-and-fall case? Knowing what the instructions are likely to be is invaluable when you sit down to draft your complaint. By a wide margin, though, the best teacher is the jury trial itself. Trials may be less frequent since the pandemic, but disputes still reach an impasse and must be resolved by six or twelve jurors. Lawyers often hesitate because of the expense, yet the cost is easy to overstate. An admitted-liability case can be tried in a day and a half, typically with a single physician’s deposition—for less than the price of a continuing-education seminar. The National Trial Advocacy College and programs like it are excellent, but tuition can run as high as $4,000, plus airfare and lodging. However good those programs are, none of them matches trying a case yourself, in front of a real judge and a real jury. No classroom can replicate the anxiety nearly every lawyer feels the night before and during a trial, regardless of the amount in controversy or the issues involved. And there is no better teacher than the trial judge. For years, as a young lawyer, I asked judges to critique me during trial, and they were glad to oblige. The advice was often simple but always useful: judges told me that I really needed to ask for money and that my analogies didn’t have any dollar figures in them, or that some of the jurors weren’t happy with certain aspects of my presentation. My favorite piece of advice was when a judge told me that the jurors like a good fight and that they were disappointed I was so agreeable with opposing counsel. The governing principle for all of us is that we are limited only by our lack of imagination. One last thing. When you finish reading this, open your calendar and block out time in January or February for a winter vacation. Plan it now.

F A L L

2 0 2 6

Supio is a proud Gold Level sponsor of NATA.

The most trusted AI in the PI industry. Backed by industry-leading partnerships, Supio brings demands, chronologies, motion drafting, and deposition prep together in one reliable platform.

100k+ 10x cases processed

settlement value*

25%

reduced time on desk*

Scan to book a demo or visit supio.com/book-a-demo.

*Outcomes are based on customer-reported averages. See more details at supio.com/customers.

N ATA RECENT HAPPENINGS

NATA 2026 SUMMER MEETING Beaver Creek Colorado

Thanks to our Summer Meeting Sponsors: Great Plains Reporting Summit Structured Settlements SUPIO

NATA Board Members work hard and play hard when they come together!

April 17 Sine Die event at Powers Law

Congratulations Thomas Thierfelder for winning the 2026 Roscoe Pound Award for Best Oral Advocate, presented by NATA. 28

April 17th CLE Seminar at Nebraska Law

Created by lawyers, for lawyers and run by lawyers.

Lawyers seek advice from lawyers. Why wouldn’t you buy your insurance from lawyers as well? Proud Sponsor of NATA for over 20 years • MLM has returned a dividend check to policyholders annually, since 1988, over $83 million total • First dollar defense- a loss only deductible can produce a substantial savings for firms facing nuisance type claims • Full prior acts coverage • Offers an array of services to mitigate risks including three free CLEs for policyholders each policy year, $165 value Get a fast quote today! Brenda Roe-Weaver Regional Sales DIrector 515-380-5324 brenda@mlmins.com www.mlmins.com

Protecting Your Practice is Our Policy.®

NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEYS SEMINAR

STRATEGIC ADVOCACY FOR EVERY STAGE OF CIVIL LITIGATION SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 Papillion Landing • 1046 W. Lincoln Street • Papillion, Nebraska 30

MORNING SESSION 7:45 AM

Check-in / Continental breakfast Sponsored by Great Plains Reporting

8:15 AM

Welcome & Opening Remarks Christa Binstock Israel, Atwood Law

8:30 AM AI & Attorney Ethics: Competence, Confidentiality & Candor in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Emily N. Haggstrom, Atwood Law 9:30 AM The Best Offense is a Good Defense Witness – Hang Them with Their Own Rope Aaron Brown, Aaron Brown Injury Law 10:30 AM

Morning Break Sponsored by Minnesota Lawyers Mutual

10:45 AM There is Nothing OK About Oklahoma — A Mediator’s Perspective Tim Clausen, Klass Law Firm, LLP 11:45 AM

Lunch Break Sponsored by Eve Legal & Summit Structured Settlements

12:30 PM

••• ••• ••• •••

AFTERNOON SESSION The Bench’s Perspective: What Works, What Doesn’t Panelists: Hon. Ryan Post, Hon. Zachary Blackman, Hon. Brynne Holsten Puhl, Hon. Mike Smith, and Hon. Robert Otte (retired)

1:30 PM Plans, Pressure, and Pathos: Some Strategies for Subrogation and Lien Reduction Sam Colwell, Rembolt Ludtke, LLP 2:00 PM

Avoiding Perils & Pitfalls in Nebraska Appeals Michael Milone, Koukol Johnson, LLC

2:30 PM

Afternoon Break Sponsored by Vital View Imaging & Nebraska Court Reporting

2:45 PM

A Strategic Advocacy Masterclass with David Domina David Domina, Domina Law Group, PC, LLO

3:45 PM

Closing Remarks Christa Binstock Israel, Atwood Law THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS: Great Plains Reporting, Legal Nurse Consulting, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual, Nebraska Court Reporting, Moonstruck, Precision Life Care, Planning Summit Structured Settlements, Vital View Imaging, Eve Legal

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R PAID A DV ERTISEMENT

VitalView Imaging & The Power of MRI In Personal Injury Cases In personal injury cases, objective evidence is often the deciding factor between a denied claim and a fair settlement. While subjective radiology reports of pain or soft-tissue discomfort can be dismissed by insurance adjusters, high-resolution diagnostic imaging provides an undeniable visual record of trauma. High-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) serves as the gold standard in modern injury medicine, offering the clarity required to uncover hidden injuries, direct proper medical treatment, and legally substantiate damages. At the forefront of this specialized diagnostic care is Omaha, NE based VitalView Imaging, a facility tailored specifically to meet the rigorous demands of both medical providers and personal injury litigation.

The Critical Role of MRI in Personal Injury Litigation

Unlike traditional X-rays or CT scans—which excel at identifying bony fractures but miss subtle soft-tissue damage—MRI technology utilizes powerful magnetic fields and radio waves to capture detailed cross-sectional images of the body’s internal structures. In personal injury cases such as motor vehicle collisions or severe falls, the most debilitating injuries often involve non-bony tissues: · Spinal Trauma: Disc herniations, bulges, and nerve root impactions. · Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): Microbleeds, diffuse axonal injury, and mild TBIs (mTBIs). · Joint & Soft-Tissue Damage: Ligament tears, tendon ruptures, and deep tissue inflammation. Without an MRI, injuries like disc bulges or mild traumatic brain injuries are frequently misdiagnosed as temporary “whiplash” or routine sprains. An MRI transforms subjective complaints into objective physical evidence, proving both the existence and the severity of an injury.

Advanced Technology at VitalView Imaging VitalView Imaging sets a higher benchmark for diagnostic accuracy by deploying high-field 3 Tesla (3T) MRI technology. A 3T magnet delivers double the field strength of standard 1.5T scanners currently in use, yielding significantly higher signal-to-noise ratios and finer detail. VitalView utilizes specialized imaging sequences engineered explicitly for trauma evaluation: · S usceptibility-Weighted Imaging (SWI): Detects microhemorrhages and subtle vascular disruptions in the brain that standard sequences miss, making it invaluable for establishing objective proof of mTBI. · S pecialized Spine Protocols: Multi-planar, thin-slice imaging precisely angled through each intervertebral disc space to clearly visualize subtle herniations and spinal cord impingement. Furthermore, VitalView Imaging understands the financial complexities of legal cases, offering lien-based services so injured patients can access crucial diagnostic scans without immediate out-of-pocket costs.

The Unmatched Power of VitalView Imaging’s Reporting Advanced scanning technology is only half the equation; the interpretation of those scans is what bridges medicine and the law. Reports provided through Expert Radiology’s subspecialized radiologists carry immense weight in personal injury matters. A high-quality radiology report goes far beyond basic identification of pathology. Sub-specialty trained radiologists provide detailed anatomical breakdowns, explicit descriptions and illustrations of structural damage, and crucial insights regarding injury etiology and causation. When defense counsel or insurance adjusters attempt to attribute a patient’s pain to age-related degenerative changes, a precise report from a qualified radiologist can distinguish acute traumatic injury from pre-existing conditions. By pairing state-of-the-art 3T MRI imaging at VitalView Imaging with Expert Radiology’s interpretations, patients receive the precise medical care they need, while personal injury attorneys gain the objective, bulletproof evidence required to advocate effectively for fair compensation. Call us today to schedule your clients!

THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED CONTENT PAID FOR BY VITALVIEW IMAGING AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EDITORIAL CONTENT OF NATA OR THE PRAIRIE BARRISTER.

F A L L

2 0 2 6

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

Membership in the Circle of Advocates at an annual dues of $2,000 and Sustaining Membership at an annual dues of $1250 provide needed financial support for NATA’s work in service to its members, their clients, and the public.

2 0 2 6 CIRCL E OF A DVO CATES Jason Ausman Todd Bennett James Cada Maren Chaloupka Patrick Cooper Nancy Freburg Daniel Friedman Stephen Gerdes

Elizabeth Govaerts James E. Harris Matt Lathrop Robert Moodie George Moyer Robert Pahlke James Paloucek Ross Pesek

Vincent Powers Mark Richardson Richard Schicker Ryan Sewell Julie Shipman-Burns Andrew Sibbernsen Jacqueline Tessendorf Dan Thayer

Jennifer Turco Meyer Jonathan Urbom Peter Wegman Christopher Welsh Brock Wurl

2 0 2 6 SUSTAINING MEMBERS

William Andres James Bocott D.C. “Woody” Bradford Aaron Brown Eric Brown Nathan Bruner John Carroll Gregory Coffey Michael Coyle

2 0 2 5

Tara DeCamp Joseph Dowding Michelle Dreesen Daniel Fix Erin Fox Mandy Gruhlkey Cameron Guenzel James Knowles Matthew Knowles

Robert Knowles Mandy Larson Steven Lathrop Danny Leavitt Rachel Lindsay Kyle Long Clarence Mock Michael Mullin Kathleen Neary

NEW MEMBERS WELCOME NEW MEMBERS! NATA CELEBRATES OUR NEW MEMBERS OF WINTER 2025. Alex Arkfeld, Gutman Law Mykaylan Burner, Berry Law Carrie Gaines, Dipasquale Moore Injury Law Sydney Hayes, Gutman Law Rachel Lindsay, Turco Meyer LLC Dennis M. McElwain, Smith & McElwain Law Office Adam Morfeld, Nebraska Donor Alliance Josephine Ramage, Pesek Law Paige Schroeder, University of Oregon Law School Drew Ward, DM Law USA Madison Young, Singleton Schreiber LLP

Brody Ockander Jeff Putnam Shayla Reed Jon Rehm Terrence Salerno Mitchell Stehlik Adam Tabor Julie Tabor

NEBRASKA CHAPTER The following attorneys are recognized for

Excellence in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mark Christensen Lincoln

Tim Engler Lincoln

Dennis Riekenberg Omaha

Stephen Gealy Lincoln

Robert Shively Lincoln

Robert Keith Lincoln

Amy Van Horne Omaha

Michael Kinney Omaha

Terry Waite North Platte

Michael Mullin Omaha

David Woodke Omaha

Check your preferred available dates or schedule appointments online, directly with Academy Members - for free. www.NebraskaMediators.org funded by these members

* The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals is an invitation-only professional association of over 1000 litigator-rated mediators & arbitrators throughout the US and a proud partner of the AAJ and DRI. For more info, please visit www.NADN.org/about

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

VERDICT

v e r d i c t s

s e t t l e m e n t s

$100,000 Motor Vehicle Collision – Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries and Nerve Injury Court/County: Pulaski County, Arkansas Date: March 26, 2026 Plaintiff Attorney Name: Ross Pesek and Alejandra Ayotitla. Joseph Gates and BW Walas were Arkansas counsel.

Plaintiffs, father and son, were injured in a motor vehicle collision while traveling through Arkansas. Liability was sharply disputed, with two competing versions of the crash and no independent eyewitnesses or accident reconstruction experts. Plaintiffs claimed Defendant failed to maintain a proper lookout, maintain control of the vehicle, and avoid the collision. Defendant contended Plaintiffs’ vehicle was disabled and stopped perpendicular to traffic on the interstate, leaving insufficient time to avoid the crash. Plaintiffs argued that even if Defendant’s version were accepted, Defendant still had a duty to maintain a proper lookout, keep control of the vehicle, and avoid hazards in the roadway. The jury found Defendant 51% at fault and Plaintiffs 49% at fault, resulting in a reduced Plaintiff verdict under Arkansas comparative fault law. The father sustained mild traumatic brain injury symptoms and aggravation of pre-existing low back injuries. The son suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and a permanent right arm injury caused by nerve impingement. Both were treated in the emergency room but underwent no surgeries. Ongoing treatment was complicated by the Plaintiffs’ lack of health insurance and multiple moves during the litigation. COVERAGE: Unknown. MEDICALS: Approximately $40,000. LOST WAGES: None claimed. SETTLEMENT OFFER: Medical expenses only. EXPERTS: Treating physicians. UNUSUAL FACTS: The case turned almost entirely on witness credibility, with no independent eyewitnesses. Plaintiffs emphasized Defendant’s continuing duty to maintain a proper lookout, maintain control, and avoid roadway hazards. Despite the closely contested liability issues, the jury returned a Plaintiff’s verdict. Damages were affected by Plaintiffs relocating multiple times during the litigation, resulting in sporadic medical treatment in Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Plaintiffs were Nebraska residents traveling through Arkansas at the time of the collision. Pesek Law partnered with Arkansas counsel but served as lead trial counsel throughout the Arkansas trial. (60CV-22-7838)

VERDICT

T H E

$155,000 Motor Vehicle Collision – Cervical Spine Injury Lancaster County District Court Date: April 10,2026 Plaintiff Attorney Name: Ross Pesek and Daniel Martin

Plaintiff was injured in a T-bone collision after Defendant entered an intersection without seeing oncoming traffic. Plaintiff claimed Defendant’s negligence caused a cervical acceleration-deceleration (whiplash) injury that caused and/or aggravated previously asymptomatic multilevel cervical spinal stenosis. MRI imaging revealed severe stenosis with disc protrusions at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 resulting in spinal cord and nerve root compression. Plaintiff underwent conservative treatment, including medications and Toradol injections, but continued to experience chronic neck pain and radiculopathy through the time of trial. Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic spine surgeon recommended a three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), but Plaintiff deferred surgery because of the significant risks, permanent loss of cervical motion, and inability to afford the procedure without health insurance. The jury returned a $125,000 verdict, which increased to a final payment of $155,000 after stipulated medical expenses and prejudgment interest were added. Coverage: $100,000 State Farm policy. The policy limits were exposed after State Farm rejected multiple settlement opportunities at or below policy limits before suit, resulting in excess exposure for its insured. Medicals: $12,039.99 stipulated past medical expenses. Future surgery was presented to the jury. LOST WAGES: None claimed. Plaintiff had previously been disabled from a prior workplace injury. SETTLEMENT OFFER: $50,000 Offer to Confess Judgment during litigation;pre-suit offer was less than $20,000. EXPERTS: Dr. David Benavides (Orthopedic Spine Surgeon) and Dr. Demetrio Aguila (Ear, Nose and Throat/Plastic Reconstructive Surgeon) for Plaintiff; Dr. Scott Vincent (Orthopedic Spine Surgeon) and Dr. Mark Jacoby (Neurologist) for Defendant. UNUSUAL FACTS: Plaintiff had been permanently disabled from a prior 20-foot workplace fall and had numerous significant preexisting medical conditions, including severe cervical degeneration, yet no cervical injury had ever been documented before this collision despite extensive prior medical treatment. Plaintiff was functionally illiterate, including in his native language of Spanish, creating unique communication challenges with both medical providers and counsel. Following the verdict, State Farm paid an additional $55,000 above its $100,000 policy limits to resolve the excess exposure created by its decision to reject earlier settlement opportunities. (CI 24-159)

VERDICT

2 0 2 6 UPCOMING EVENTS

$350,000 Wrongful Denial of Life Insurance Benefits Douglas County District Court Date: March 18, 2026 Plaintiff Attorney Name: Ross Pesek and Alejandra Ayotitla

SEPTEMBER 24

Widow sought payment of a $350,000 life insurance policy following the death of her husband. Defendant denied the claim, alleging misrepresentations in the insurance application and fraud in the inducement. The court bifurcated Plaintiff's insurance bad faith claim. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded the full life insurance policy benefits. The insurance bad faith claim remains pending. COVERAGE: $350,000 life insurance policy.

NATA Annual Membership Dinner Quarry Oaks, Ashland, 5:30 – 9 p.m. 25 NATA CLE Seminar Papillion Landing NOTE NEW LOCATION!

NOVEMBER 3

NE General Election

DECEMBER 11 NATA CLE Seminar ESU 3, La Vista NOTE NEW LOCATION!

MEDICALS: N/A. LOST WAGES: N/A. SETTLEMENT OFFER: None. A court-ordered mediation was held but ended within an hour without resolution. EXPERTS: None.Farmers employees (sales representative, underwriter, and claims supervisor) were theonly witnesses.

For Trustee and Committee Meetings, please visit NATA CLE & Events Calendar.

UNUSUAL FACTS: During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking whetherit could award more than $350,000 policy limits. Because only the breach of contractclaim was before the jury, the court instructed that any award was limited to the value of the insurance contract.

Join your fellow members for an evening of light jazz, cocktails and dinner.

Thursday September 24, 2026 5:30 pm Reception 7:15 pm Dinner Quarry Oaks Golf Club Ashland $95 per person

Spouses & Guests Welcome Please make your reservations by September 17th. RSVP online at NebraskaTrial.com MANY THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS: Eve Legal Great Plains Reporting Minnesota Lawyers Mutual

Nebraska Court Reporting Summit Structured Settlements

T H E

P R A I R I E

N A T A

B A R R I S T E R

Y O U N G

L A W Y E R S

by Alejandra Ayotitla

DEAR READERS, I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective with you in this column, where many NATA lawyers before me have shared their experiences and insights. This is not an opportunity I take lightly, as I believe that telling our stories, sharing our experiences and lessons are a key part of our development and sense of community as lawyers. So, with that in mind, I want to introduce myself by sharing my journey, in hopes that it will offer a different perspective that is worth sharing in our profession.

On April 24, 2023, I walked into the Capitol alongside my husband and in-laws and greeted my parents and sister who awaited me with a bouquet of flowers. We walked together towards the Rotunda, where the swearing-in ceremony was taking place. After greeting my bosses, Ross and Karen Pesek, hugging my parents, and seeing the pride on their faces, I took my seat as my heart pounded with anticipation and excitement. Alongside many of my law school peers, I stood before the Nebraska Supreme Court judges with my right hand raised as I took the oath administered by the Chief Justice. I was now officially admitted to the practice law in the state of Nebraska. My nine-year-old self who saw the towering Capitol building for the first time as we arrived in Lincoln from Mexico on a snowy December day, would never have imagined that eighteen years later I would be in that Capitol building in front of the Nebraska Supreme Court taking an oath to serve as an attorney. My journey to becoming a lawyer has been anything but linear and at the same time it has been brewing since the day I arrived in this country. I could not have known as a child how much my experience as an immigrant would influence my career path. As an immigrant high school student, I knew I wanted to go to college. I was inspired by the constant mantra that my parents had given me - “an education will open up doors for you.” But I was not quite sure how to get there, as I was the first in my family to aspire to a college education and the first one to do it in the U.S. Despite various obstacles, like navigating the college application process on my own, researching and applying for non-governmental scholarships, and my uncertain immigration status, I pushed ahead with the deep conviction that getting a college degree would change my life. After applying to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and obtaining various private scholarships, I began my college education at UNL as a psychology major. During college I discovered my passion for serving the immigrant community as I took jobs, research and extracurricular opportunities that focused on working with the Latino immigrant community. During this time, I also experienced advocacy for the first time. Up to this point, I had been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This temporary immigration status allowed me and many other “Dreamers” across the country to legally remain in the country and hold valid work authorization, subject to

certain conditions, including educational requirements, not being convicted of any serious crimes, and not threatening national security or public safety. Yet, this program alone did not guarantee other state benefits. In 2015, Nebraska bill LB623 was proposed; this law would allow DACA recipients to be eligible to obtain driver’s licenses. Alongside a group of DACA youth and community allies, I shared my immigrant story and plans to earn a bachelor’s degree and continue my education to become a licensed psychologist with our state senators, at hearings, and interviews with the local media. I was not only advocating for myself, but for the many other immigrant students coming up behind me, like my sister. After hearings, floor debates, and the governor’s veto, on May 28, 2015, state senators voted to sign LB623 into law, making Nebraska the final state in the nation to extend driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. But there was still another important policy issue to address. Despite the passage of LB623 in the previous year, in 2016, Nebraska DACA recipients were still not allowed to obtain professional licenses in fields with licensing requirements. This limited access to professional advancement and employment opportunities for Dreamers. So, LB947 was introduced in the Nebraska Legislature by the same state senators who had championed LB623. Once again, me and my fellow Dreamers alongside community partners advocated for change. This time I was closer to graduation, and having the certainty that I would be allowed to become a licensed psychologist was crucial to me. We shared our stories with state senators and the public, testified at hearings, and showed up at floor debates. After months of advocacy, on April 20, 2016, LB947 passed. This victory meant Dreamers like me would be able to apply for the required licenses to practice in their chosen professions. For me, this victory brought an unexpected change in my career path. Seeing the legislative process play out sparked my interest in policy and the law. I was inspired by the lawyers who worked arduously to help write these bills, who saw a problem and proposed a solution, and used their legal education to impact positive changes that transformed the lives of many individuals. I was also inspired by the impact that this process had, as it had moved young immigrants like me who had never been involved in advocacy before to take an active role in our community, as well as bringing together teachers, employers, business leaders, religious leaders, and neighbors. Inspired by that experience, I worked as a community organizer during my final year of college and after graduation, where I worked alongside amazing lawyers. In that role, I heard so many stories of immigrant families, just like mine. Hard working, honest, reliable, kind, generous men and women who needed help with all kinds of legal matters, not just immigration. Yet, the obstacles to obtaining legal representation were many, from financial access to pay for such services to language and cultural barriers. It was hearing these stories and seeing the need in my community, that the idea of becoming a lawyer transformed into a goal for me.

F A L L

2 0 2 6

I thought having lived as an immigrant in this country for over a decade at that point, being fully bilingual, understanding Latino culture and US culture, would all translate into being a lawyer who could offer my community a type of representation that was difficult to find, particularly as an immigration lawyer. So, with that as my driving force I embarked on my first year of law school at the Nebraska College of Law. But as I began this new chapter, I now carried renewed uncertainty about my immigration status. During my second semester of law school, the DACA litigation that had been climbing its way up in the courts since the program was announced to be terminated on September 5, 2017, reached the Supreme Court. As most of my peers and I worried about our grades and finding our first summer legal job, I also worried whether the Supreme Court would allow DACA to continue. I worried I would lose my status. With no legislative solution in sight, I wondered how I would become a lawyer if DACA ended. But the Supreme Court held that the program’s rescission was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. In practice this meant DACA was allowed to continue for individuals who had previously received its protection but no new applications would be processed by the Department of Homeland Security. This holding allowed me to maintain my status, which meant being able to engage in employment opportunities that provided valuable legal experience during my summer clerkships. Nonetheless, I was saddened to know that other Dreamers behind me would not have access to the same opportunities that DACA had given me. As I embarked on the rest of my law school journey, what kept me grounded was serving the immigrant community. I volunteered at the College’s Naturalization Clinic, where we helped low-income immigrants prepare their naturalization forms. I clerked at the Center for Legal Immigration Assistance, working on asylum cases for women escaping persecution. I had the opportunity to clerk at Pesek Law, the firm where I now proudly serve injured immigrants. During my clerkship at Pesek Law, I witnessed the obstacles that Spanish-speaking Latino immigrants encounter within the civil justice system while seeking fair compensation for injuries they wrongfully suffered. It became evident to me that this was an area of the law where immigrants were particularly vulnerable and underserved. I had never met another Latino immigrant lawyer doing this type of work for our community. I saw an opportunity to utilize my language skills, cultural understanding, personal experience as an immigrant, and legal education to guide injured immigrants towards attaining civil justice. As I entered my last year of law school, I was thrilled to have a job waiting for me as an associate attorney at Pesek Law after graduation. Graduation came on May 14, 2022. Receiving my law degree marked a significant milestone in my life, as I was the first person in my family to hold a doctoral degree. I took the final step to becoming a licensed attorney on April 24, 2023, at my swearing-in ceremony where I was admitted to practice law as an attorney in the state of Nebraska, becoming one of the few Dreamers to hold a license to practice law in our state. When I began practicing as a plaintiff’s attorney at Pesek Law, I realized that the purpose that led me to law school would become the foundation of my career. As an immigrant myself, I have the privilege of representing the hardworking and

resilient immigrant community that shaped and nurtured me. Every day, I help injured clients navigate a civil justice system that can feel intimidating and unfamiliar, advocating for those who, through no fault of their own, have suffered life-changing injuries and deserve to exercise their constitutional right to have their cases heard by a jury. Over the past three years, I have worked to secure fair and full compensation for my clients while ensuring they are treated with the dignity and respect every person deserves. Bringing together these two defining parts of my identity, being an immigrant and an attorney serving immigrants, has made this work deeply meaningful. Within my first year of practice, I represented a painter who lost his ability to provide for his wife, children, and family in his country of origin after a semitruck crashed into him, leaving him with a traumatic brain injury, serious spinal injuries, and broken ribs. As I prepared his case for trial, I came to know him beyond the facts of his injuries. He settled in South Omaha, where he built a new life through hard physical labor, perseverance, and faith, raised a family, and watched one of his children become the first in the family to earn a college degree. In his story, I saw my father’s. My father, too, had come to this country in his early twenties and rebuilt his life from the ground up through decades of honest work as a welder; years later, he watched both of his daughters earn college degrees. Another client whose story moved me deeply was that of a vibrant and brave woman who built her own home-cleaning business, and alongside her husband, raised their daughter in an entirely new country for them. In her story, I also saw my mother’s. After arriving in this country, my mother spent years working in the cleaning industry before eventually building her own home-cleaning business, all while being present for her daughters and husband. In my client’s determination to regain the active life she cherished after a negligent driver left her with permanent and severe spinal injuries requiring surgery, I saw the resilience that defines so many immigrants. Time and time again, I have witnessed my clients and the immigrant

their lives. We help restore stability for their families, preserve opportunities for future generations, and affirm the dignity of people whose stories deserve to be heard.

community more broadly refuse to let life’s greatest hardships define them, choosing instead to begin again with remarkable courage and determination. In my first trial last year, I saw the dignity of an immigrant packing plant worker shape the story we told. Like so many people in rural Nebraska, he had devoted decades of his life and much of his physical health to working in a packing plant. He was permanently injured when a negligent driver, employed by a company that knew of the driver’s poor driving history, disregarded the safety of others while hauling propane tanks. Yet our client insisted on telling his story to a jury because he believed our jury system offered the best chance at fair and full justice, something he could not have expected from the civil justice system in his home country. He was right. The jury saw him, heard his story, recognized his truth, and returned a verdict of half a million dollars. 40

Through clients like these and the many others who have entrusted me with their stories over the past three years, I have witnessed the transformative power of restorative justice. No amount of money can erase the physical, emotional, or mental pain our clients endure. But when we secure the fair and full compensation they deserve, we do more than help them rebuild

As I reflect on the journey that becoming a lawyer and growing into this role has been, I realize that it took an entire community to get me here. For me, this community was the encouraging high school teachers who believed that an immigrant student could go to college, the college professor who took the time to get to know me and challenge me, the mentors that believed I was capable of leading community projects, and most of all believed I was capable of becoming a lawyer, the law school students who took me under their wing when I was applying to law school, the lawyers who gave me the opportunity to engage in meaningful work during summer clerkships, the law school professors who saw my potential and provided valuable advice and support, the law school friends who were in the trenches with me every day, and my family, whose example of resilience, perseverance, service, and work ethic has always guided me. Their support made it possible for me to go from an immigrant student to an attorney. In this exercise of looking back at my journey, I realized how often we forget how far we have come. Especially as a young lawyer, it is overwhelming to step into this new role that comes with entirely new challenges, learning curves, expectations, and responsibilities. But we must remember that the journey that brought us here required resilience, perseverance, discipline, commitment, and purpose. Those same qualities will continue to guide us as we strive to serve our clients throughout our career. When I took my oath before the Nebraska Supreme Court, I could not have fully understood what it would mean to carry the title of attorney. Three years later, I understand that being a lawyer is about far more than knowing the law. It is about listening to people’s stories, standing beside them in some of the hardest moments of their lives, and using the privilege of this profession to pursue justice with compassion, integrity, and purpose. I am grateful to the community that helped me reach this profession, and I hope to spend my career doing the same for others.

Life Care Plans for Injury & Disability Cases At Precision Life Care Planning, we provide detailed, evidence-based life care plans tailored for individuals facing long-term medical, rehabilitation, and assistive care needs due to injury or disability. Our expertise ensures that attorneys, medical professionals, and case managers receive comprehensive, structured assessments that stand up in both legal and medical settings.

Why Choose Us? ✓Comprehensive Medical & Rehabilitation Assessments ✓Future Medical Cost Projections ✓Clear, Defensible Life Care Plans ✓Trusted by Legal & Medical Professionals

Contact Precision Life Care Planning today! (308)-352-6447 www.precisionlcp.com Serving Clients across Nebraska

Summit Structured Settlements 7155 Lake Drive | Suite 110 | West Des Moines, IA 50266 Phone: 515-987-6888 | toll free: 866-267-1177 info@summitsettlements.com | www.summitsettlements.com

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

W A S H I N G T O N

U P D A T E

By Linda Lipsen, CEO American Association for Justice

Congress adjourned for August, providing five weeks for U.S. House and Senate members to return to their districts and states. Since January, AAJ has played defense against powerful corporations that have worked non-stop to include harmful language in legislative proposals to end lawyers’ practices and limit Americans’ rights. The Big Takeaway: Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Kids Online On August 5, the Senate Commerce Committee passed the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the CHATBOT Act, and the Youth AI Privacy Act, all with language that will protect most families’ rights to pursue legal accountability through the courts and preserve stronger state laws that protect children and teens. Parents have led the way, fighting relentlessly to hold Big Tech legally responsible for the youth health and safety crisis brought on by tech companies’ decision to put profits over kids’ safety, and AAJ is proud to stand with them. Read AAJ’s statement. Other Looming Issues AAJ has been battling a tidal wave of different issues this Congress, from driverless cars to pesticide immunity, to antitrust exemptions, and preemption across the board, in addition to a barrage of executive orders aimed at reducing regulatory protections and making it easier for corporations to hurt Americans and evade all accountability. AAJ RECENTLY FILED A SERIES OF COMMENTS WITH REGULATORY AGENCIES TO PREVENT THEM FROM REDUCING CONSUMER PROTECTION: 42

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): Filed June 25. AAJ opposed NHTSA’s proposal on information collection practices because it would reduce the amount and type of information that the Department of Transportation (DOT) would receive about Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)-equipped vehicles and the collisions in which they are involved. NHTSA: Filed July 27. AAJ opposed the following rule: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Modernization of FMVSS No. 135 To Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles. If this dangerous proposal takes effect, it would undermine safety on our roadways by allowing ADS-equipped vehicles to operate without manual brakes. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Filed July 20. AAJ opposed two proposed rules from the EPA that would weaken protections against PFAS. The first is a recission of previous regulations regarding certain chemical substances including GenX chemicals, which are falsely touted as a safer alternative to PFAS. The second is a proposed extension of the compliance deadline (from 2029 to 2031) for restrictions of certain PFAS substances in drinking water. AAJ member Kevin Hannon of Colorado provided guidance on these comments. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC): Filed July 31. AAJ opposed the FTC’s policy statement on a need for national regulatory “guardrails” for artificial intelligence (AI). These proposed “guardrails” would infringe on states’ ability to protect their citizens and provide remedies to the harms of AI. Trial lawyers, as they have for decades, are the last and best defense when it comes to consumer protection, especially if Americans cannot reliably depend on federal regulatory agencies to ensure that our environment, food, and the products we use every day are safe.

F A L L

2 0 2 6

Legal Affairs Updates AAJ’s amicus curiae program is more active than ever. Between August 1, 2025, and July 15, 2026, AAJ filed 34 briefs. These briefs addressed a broad range of legal issues and practice areas. We filed in 13 different jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court; the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals; and the supreme courts of Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Of the 34 briefs filed in FY26, 20 were filed jointly with 21 co-amici organizations, including the following state trial lawyer associations:

• I llinois Trial Lawyers Association • Louisiana Association for Justice • Maryland Association for Justice • Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys • Ohio Association for Justice Federal Rules Program Our Federal Rules program is similarly busier than ever. AAJ closely monitors proposed amendments to the federal rules and advocates for rules that protect the rights of injured people before the U.S. Judicial Conference. 43

The following rules proposals will be published for public comment in mid-August, with a comment period running through mid-February 2027 (exact dates TBA):

•A mendments to privacy rules that would require the full redaction of social security numbers in non-bankruptcy filings and mandate the use of pseudonyms for minors. A AJ supports these amendments and will recommend additional improvements to these rules to protect minors’ privacy, including the use of pseudonyms for their parents and guardians.

•A mendments to FRE 902(1)(A) that would treat tribal documents like all other government documents and make them self-authenticating. This proposed change should be helpful to members representing tribes in environmental and other health-related litigation.

•A mendments to FRE 104 that would add a default preponderance standard for deciding preliminary questions in 104(a) and remove conditional relevance under 104(b).

A AJ is evaluating its position on this proposal. Working Together AAJ will continue to fight attacks from industries and powerful interests that seek to prevent trial lawyers from pursuing justice for their clients. When people’s rights are threatened, AAJ will rise to the challenge. We will work with affiliated trial lawyer associations to oppose legislation that limits accountability for corporate wrongdoing across all industries. Together, we will remain at the forefront of protecting access to justice and the right to trial by jury.

T H E

P R A I R I E

B A R R I S T E R

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION for JUSTICE

we are stronger

together

JOIN US IN THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA®), is an organization committed to promoting accountability and safety, advocating for a balanced civil justice system, improving our communities, and educating lawyers to provide excellent advocacy for their clients. 44

As a member of AAJ, you will play a meaningful role in the fight to protect the Seventh Amendment while accessing the tools you need to most effectively represent your clients against even the most powerful corporations and industries. AAJ is the only national plaintiff lawyer association working as an advocate for trial lawyers on a broad range of issues, using lobbying, litigation, and public education to promote a fair and effective civil justice system.

JOIN THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE Join us online at justice.org/Join or by contacting us at 1-800-424-2727.

YOUR CLIENTS NEED YOU. WE NEED YOU. WE CAN DO THIS TOGETHER.

N ATA MEET THE ADMINISTRATION TEAM

KNOW WHO TO CALL WHEN YOU NEED NATA ASSISTANCE DEBORAH NEARY Executive Director Nata.DebN@gmail.com 402-215-9139 Advertising & Sponsorships Barrister Magazine Board & Committee Admin General Inquiries PAC Candidate Questions JANE JONES Associate Director NataJaneJ@gmail.com 402-616-5836 CLE Seminars Membership Management

NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEYS 6173 Center Street Omaha, NE 68106 Phone: (402) 435-5526 Email nata@nebraskatrial.com

RENEE DAVIS Associate Nata.ReneeD@gmail.com 402-435-5526 PAC Donor NADC Reporting

CINDY STOWELL Executive Associate & Finance Coordinator Nata.CStowell@gmail.com 402-435-5526

SAVE THE DATE!

G L E A

U E

NATA 2027 SUMMER MEETING

June 17–19, 2027 | Denver, Colorado NATA Connections & Cubs Baseball! Join your NATA colleagues and their families for a summer meeting in the heart of Denver — including a Chicago Cubs vs. Colorado Rockies game at Coors Field! Stay at The Rally Hotel with the excitement of Coors Field just steps outside the front door. More details coming soon!

COURT

REPORTING

LEGAL VIDEO

ALL

COUNTIES

For the record, we’ve got you covered.

When it goes to trial, the record has to keep up. Daily copy between sessions. Real-time to counsel table. Video synced to the transcript for impeachment. Covered across Nebraska by reporters who get to know your firm, not just your case number — in the room or remote, wherever the case is set.

Salaried reporters

Your own relationship manager

The record as evidence

Employees with benefits — not contractors bidding against each other job by job. The same reporter can carry a matter from the first deposition through verdict.

Not a support queue. A person in Nebraska who knows your matters, your standing preferences, and the people on your team by name.

Redundant capture on every proceeding, a documented chain of custody, encryption in transit and at rest, and retention for the life of the matter.

Booking takes one document. Send the notice. We read the caption, the date, and the location off what you already drafted, and a written confirmation — reporter, videographer, connection details — comes back the same business day.

402-543-DEPO (3376) 233 South 13th Street, Suite 100 Lincoln, NE 68508

schedule@nedepos.com · nebraskadepos.com STATEWIDE

REMOTE COVERAGE NATIONWIDE