What a lawyer says in front of a jury can have consequences long after the verdict. Misleading statements, improper attacks on witnesses, or repeated violations of a judge’s evidentiary rulings may ultimately provide grounds for a new trial.
That is what happened in Hardin v. Luke (2026), a personal injury case in which the California Court of Appeal reviewed a new-trial order based on repeated misconduct by defense counsel. The trial court concluded that the conduct may have influenced the verdict and ordered a new trial on damages. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
How the Personal Injury Case Reached Trial
The case began with a traffic accident that led to a personal injury lawsuit. During trial, the court ruled that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff some injury, leaving the extent of those injuries for the jury to decide.
The jury awarded the plaintiff $95,000, including $70,000 for past medical expenses and $25,000 for past noneconomic damages. It awarded nothing for future medical expenses.
After the verdict, the plaintiff sought a new trial on damages. The judge identified six instances of misconduct by defense counsel and concluded that, taken together, they may have affected the damages award.
The defendant appealed the decision to order a new trial.
The Misleading Statements About the Plaintiff’s Medical Expert
One of the most significant issues arose during defense counsel’s opening statement. Before the plaintiff’s medical billing expert testified, defense counsel told jurors that 136 patients had sued the doctor for fraudulent billing practices.
But that was not an accurate description of the earlier lawsuit. The case had actually been brought by insurance companies against the doctor and several other defendants, and the fraud allegations had never been proven. The judge later instructed jurors that there was no factual basis for the claim that 136 patients had sued the doctor for billing fraud.
The issue was particularly important because the expert’s testimony concerned the value of the plaintiff’s medical expenses. The jury ultimately awarded $70,000 for past medical expenses—less than the approximately $126,000 estimated by the defense’s own billing expert.
The statements about the medical expert, however, were only part of the conduct the trial court considered.
Other Misconduct the Trial Court Considered
The trial court identified several other instances of improper conduct by defense counsel, including:
- Accusing the plaintiff of suppressing medical evidence that the defense had failed to timely discover.
- Attempting to introduce evidence about unrelated medical conditions despite the court having excluded that evidence.
- Insinuating that the plaintiff’s treating surgeon was a paid expert without adequate support.
- Arguing that the collision caused no injury even though the court had already determined that it caused at least some injury.
- Appealing to the jury’s sympathy by discussing the financial hardship a verdict could cause the defendant and his family.
The Court of Appeal viewed the statements about the defendant’s financial circumstances as especially serious because they could shift the jury’s attention away from the evidence.
Why the Court of Appeal Upheld the New Trial
The original trial judge denied the plaintiff’s request for a mistrial over the statements about the medical expert and instead gave the jury an instruction addressing the unsupported claim. After the verdict, however, a different judge considered that incident along with the other problems that occurred during trial and concluded that their combined effect justified a new trial on damages.
The defendant challenged that decision on appeal, arguing in part that the earlier denial of a mistrial weighed against revisiting the expert incident. The Court of Appeal upheld the order, finding sufficient grounds to conclude that the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the conduct at trial.
What Personal Injury Trial Lawyers Can Learn From the Decision
Hardin v. Luke provides several practical lessons for attorneys trying personal injury cases, particularly when medical evidence and damages are heavily disputed.
Protect the Integrity of Medical and Expert Evidence
Medical experts can play a significant role in how jurors evaluate treatment, causation, and damages. Hardin reinforces why attacks on an expert’s credibility should be grounded in evidence that can properly be presented at trial.
Repeated Misconduct Can Put a Damages Verdict at Risk
In a personal injury trial, misconduct can become especially significant when it affects how jurors evaluate medical evidence, expert credibility, or damages.
When unsupported accusations, improper arguments, and violations of evidentiary rulings accumulate, a court may consider their combined effect on the jury rather than viewing each incident separately.
Build and Protect the Trial Record
Personal injury lawyers should make clear objections when improper arguments or evidence threaten to affect the jury’s decision. Doing so gives the trial judge an opportunity to address the problem and creates a record of what occurred.
While Hardin v. Luke shows that a court may consider the broader course of the trial even when the plaintiff did not object to every incident, timely objections remain important because they allow the judge to address potential misconduct as it occurs.
Why This Decision Matters for Personal Injury Trials
Although Hardin v. Luke is unpublished and generally cannot be cited as precedent in California courts, it provides a useful example of how attorney conduct can affect a damages verdict in a personal injury case.
Medical expenses, expert credibility, causation, and the extent of a plaintiff’s injuries are often heavily disputed at trial. Hardin v. Luke demonstrates why arguments surrounding that evidence must remain grounded in the record and within the court’s rulings. When they do not, the consequences can extend beyond an objection and ultimately put the damages verdict at risk.
