01/29/2026
Associate Audreina J. Blanding recently secured a decisive trial victory in a challenging two-vehicle accident case—one tried before a judge widely regarded as among the toughest for the defense.
The collision was a high-impact accident that resulted in extensive alleged bodily harm and significant property damage. Two plaintiffs—the driver and passenger of the opposing vehicle—each sought $30,000 in damages and were represented by two separate attorneys. Before Ms. Blanding’s involvement, every indicator pointed toward fault resting squarely with her client.
That narrative changed once Ms. Blanding took command of the file. Through meticulous study of the evidence, she uncovered that the plaintiffs’ version of events did not align with how vehicles are engineered to move. The story being told simply defied the laws of known physics. Recognizing that the plaintiffs had materially misrepresented how the accident occurred, Ms. Blanding committed herself to fully exonerating her client—despite facing two plaintiffs and two plaintiff attorneys pressing an apparently confident case.
At trial, the plaintiffs-side confidence appeared well-placed after the plaintiff-driver completed his direct testimony. But everything shifted the moment Ms. Blanding began her cross-examination. Her questioning was extensive, focused, and highly effective. Using careful impeachment techniques and a compelling visual aid—a magnetic board to recreate the accident—she dismantled the plaintiff-driver’s testimony piece by piece.
The impact of Ms. Blanding's cross examination was unmistakable. Immediately following the examination, the Court took a ten-minute recess. When court resumed, both plaintiffs’ attorneys were given the opportunity to conduct a redirect examination to rehabilitate the plaintiff-driver’s testimony. But the damage had already been done. One attorney declined to ask a single follow-up question, and the other posed just one question that was unrelated to how the accident happened.
Closing arguments brought 4 competing theories before the court. Ms. Blanding presented a technically grounded analysis, explaining how vehicle engineering and basic physics contradicted the plaintiffs’ claims. Although the other 3 theories weighed against her position, the court ultimately accepted Ms. Blanding’s theory exclusively as the truth. The judge ruled entirely in favor of her client, denied both plaintiffs’ claims, and—because the client had filed a countersuit—entered a $28,000 judgment against the plaintiff-driver.
This outcome stands as a powerful testament to Audreina's trial skill, analytical precision, and unwavering advocacy for her clients!
