Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you just heard tonight directly proves our case by
a preponderance of the evidence. Remember, a preponderance of the evidence is a low bar. It
simply means that it is more likely than not that Clark Kent’s negligence ended the life of Katie
Allen. You see, this is a case about risks. A risk taken by Mr. Clark Kent, the defendant in this
lawsuit. The same Clark Kent who possessed a disfavorable reputation in the local Rutgers
community for driving like a speed demon and for blatantly disregarding posted speed limits on
the Rutgers thoroughfares. You heard Barry Allen state that he would have never given
permission to have Clark Kent drive his daughter home from anywhere. Mr. Allen also testified
to the fact that he heard his daughter say on the phone that Kent must have been going 105.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was in regards to Mr. Kent’s speed. Additionally, Mr. Allen
heard Clark say that he should “make things happen faster”. Keep in mind, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, that Clark said these things while operating a vehicle. This shows you
that Mr. Kent drove the vehicle at an unconscionable speed while he had the life of Katie Allen
in his hands. Whenever someone takes the wheel of a vehicle, he or she is responsible for their
own life as well as any passengers who happen to be in the vehicle. This is one of the most
important responsibilities that inhere in our daily lives - most of us have the ability to drive, and
we recognize the responsibility and the privilege that that carries. Vehicles are weapons, and
can be utilized as such when driven with disregard for the safety of others.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on June 22, 2021, Clark Kent drove that sportscar with
a disregard for the safety and well-being of Ms. Katie Allen. You heard tonight from Detective
Jensen, who has investigated over 180 traffic accidents in his career, that Kent must have been
traveling somewhere close to 100 miles per hour before he began to stop or otherwise avoid the
accident. He also mentioned that Kent had approximately 200 feet of unobstructed vision. That
equates to over 66 yards. Suppose you were on a football field, situated at the far end of the
field near one of the endzones. The truck would be placed near the 30 yard line on the opposite
end of the field. That’s the type of distance we're talking about. If Kent had been looking at the
road and not had his attention diverted elsewhere, then Katie Allen would still be alive today,
with all her hopes and aspirations that motivated her still intact. Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, Clark was given a citation for failure to keep a proper lookout. Couple that with the citation
for speeding, and that showcases that Mr. Kent’s inattentiveness to detail while operating a
vehicle culminated in catastrophic consequences for his passenger. Consequences so severe
that they ended his passenger’s life.
How do we know that Mr. Kent was rather inattentive while driving? Well, he admitted to
it during his previous deposition testimony. He and the decedent had an “on again, off again”
relationship, and we know that she started to unbutton her blouse while in the car. What does
this show you? It tells us that while Mr. Kent was operating the vehicle, what was important to
him did not necessarily align with the most important concern of all while operating any vehicle
- human safety.
Defense’s expert witness helps our case rather than weakens it. Yes, there was a lack of
emergency precautions taken by Mr. Hal Jordan; however, given the inattentiveness and rather
careless nature of Kent’s driving habits on June 22, 2021, would it even matter? Ms. Cain
admits in her treatise that younger drivers tend to be less attentive to the ever-so-important task
of driving when there is a member of the opposite sex in the car. Guess what, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury? There was a member of the opposite sex in the car, thereby discrediting
Ms. Cain’s ultimate proposition that Kent could have seriously avoided this accident if only there
were emergency precautions present. Because Kent admitted to his distracted nature and even
Ms.Cain admits that younger drivers like Kent tend to be more distractible than their mature
counterparts, how are we to believe Ms. Cain’s conclusions that the accident was actually
caused by the lack of emergency precautions? Her contradictory assertions in her treatise show
that Ms. Cain is not a credible expert witness, and only strengthens our case.
We need justice in this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The Allens are grieving
the loss of their special, one-of-a-kind daughter. Her life was taken by the terrible driving habits
of Clark Kent. Rendering a verdict holding him liable for her death may not bring her back to life,
but it will help the family find closure in this very difficult time. No amount of money will bring
Katie back, but we can set an example and showcase to the community that actions like those
taken by Clark Kent have consequences. So, let’s set an example. Thank you.