Did a defendant ever tell you they "consider aesthetics over safety"?

"Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty , art, and taste with the creation and appreciation of beauty."

So I'm representing this woman who is shopping at a well -known, upscale New York department store. It's an"illusion of space case", wherein due to the lighting, heavily waxed/shined floors and the colorful background ,my client walks through an empty sign fixture, gets tangled up and suffers a nasty fall. End result; Horrific case of RSD. [Real].
So I'm taking the deposition of a salesman stationed in the area at the time of the accident. It was quite evident from "the get go" that he didn't want to be giving a deposition.
Anyway, about half way through the deposition he states under oath " we looked at aesthetics before safety"! Wow! Did you ever get a witness to say that?
So I'm thinking to myself; do I ask one or two more quickie questions and call it a day, or do I really go to town? I chose the former route ; asked a couple of additional questions to nail things down and wrapped it up.

So the case comes up for trial in Supreme Court , New York County. I subpoena the guy for my direct case. Call him, hold him to his deposition testimony ...What a beautiful moment. The rest is history... case settles for $800,000 and I avoid a huge potential comparative negligence verdict.

Well that's it for another chapter of "Goldman War Stories".

See you next time.