A human jury found 8 to 0 for the plaintiff. Our simulated jurors matched
In May 2026, an Oakland County jury heard nine days of testimony in Iminski v. First Student and returned a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff. We gave the same trial, with the verdict withheld, to a 20-juror simulated panel matched to the venue. The panel agreed with the jury on every liability question, wrote the same wage figure to the dollar, and rejected the defense’s valuation, 20 of 20.
The case
On March 8, 2024, a First Student school bus ran a red light in Oakland County, Michigan, struck the work truck Brian Iminski was driving, and pushed it into a guardrail. Iminski, then 33, was a service manager at a heating and cooling company. The court resolved negligence before trial, so the jury was never asked who caused the crash. The trial was about injuries and damages.
The plaintiff put on doctors, an economist, coworkers, and Iminski himself to describe serious back and head injuries. The defense pointed to his medical history before the crash, the months he kept working afterward, and surveillance of him hunting and boating. In opening, the defense told jurors a reasonable award would fall between $350,000 and $500,000. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel asked for $10,000,000 for past pain and suffering.
The verdict form, question by question
The real jury sat through the whole trial, nine days over two weeks. The simulated jurors watched the trial video and read the transcripts, about 30 minutes to run the simulation. On every question below, the panel answered the way the jury did.
| Question | Real jury, one form | Simulated panel, 20 jurors |
|---|---|---|
| Was Iminski injured as a result of the crash? | Yes | Yes20 of 20 |
| Was First Student’s negligence a proximate cause of the injury? | Yes | Yes20 of 20 |
| Did Iminski suffer past excess wage loss? | Yes | Yes20 of 20 |
| Amount of past excess wage loss | $17,235 | $17,235Written by all 20, to the dollar |
| Will Iminski suffer future wage loss? | Yes | Yes20 of 20 |
| Amount of future wage lossBoth juries took the plaintiff’s economist at his word | His year-by-year schedulePresent value $2,579,309 | His present value, $2,579,309Written to the dollar by six jurors; panel median $2,500,000 |
| Serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement? | Yes | Yes20 of 20 |
| The defense’s $350,000 to $500,000 valuation | Rejected | RejectedEvery juror wrote above it |
| Verdict | PlaintiffUnanimous, 8 of 8 | Plaintiff20 of 20 |
On future wage loss, Michigan juries write year-by-year amounts that the court reduces to present value after trial. The simulated jurors wrote one total, so the two answers meet at the economist’s present value, which six of them reproduced exactly.
Why the panel voted the way it did
Every simulated juror explains their vote in their own words. Three of the twenty, from the most generous to the most skeptical.
“Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, you take a victim as you find them, and Brian Iminski was a hardworking man whose life was completely upended when a massive school bus ran a red light and smashed into his truck.”
“The defense tried to make it sound like he was totally fine because he went hunting or drove a boat, but the guy just didn’t want to give up his life.”
“The bus ran a red light and he eventually needed surgery, so he deserves a fair payout, just not a lottery win.”
What counsel would have known before trial
A panel like this takes an afternoon to run. Here is what it would have put on the table while the settlement conversation was still open.
For the plaintiff
Liability was never the fight. Injury, causation, wage loss, and serious impairment came back yes from all twenty.
The surveillance defense moved no one. Jurors who credited the hunting and boating footage still voted plaintiff, and several turned it into a reason to award more.
For the defense and its carrier
The $350,000 to $500,000 valuation had no takers. Twenty of twenty wrote above it, and the most defense-friendly juror on the panel still called it a case that deserved a fair payout.
The economist was going to be believed. Every juror adopted his past wage figure and most adopted his present value for future wages, which is where a damages defense would have had to start.
Then run it again. Swap the closing, drop a witness, add the surveillance video or take it out, and see which votes move. A live mock trial tests one version of your case. A simulated panel can test all of them before you pick one.
How the test was run
A retrospective benchmark on the public trial record, checked line by line against the transcripts.
Tested against real verdicts
Iminski v. First Student is one of dozens of real trials we’ve benchmarked against. Book a demo to see more of the findings and to run a venue-matched panel on one of your live matters.
Book a demo