A 56-year-old man received a significant financial settlement after being injured by a sliding door on a cruise ship four years earlier.
Jim Hausman pursued legal action against Holland America Line following an incident that occurred in 2011 while aboard one of their ships.
Footage captured the incident, showing Jim walking down a corridor when an automatic sliding door abruptly closed, striking him on the side of his head.
Although the impact seemed minor, Jim and his wife Carol disclosed that it was the start of numerous health complications.
The couple attempted to continue enjoying the remainder of the cruise, hoping some relaxation would aid in recovery.
However, the issues persisted even after the cruise concluded, worsening over time.
In an interview with Inside Edition in 2015, Carol explained: “The doctor originally thought it was a bump on the head, there was a laceration and that he would recover.
“He is not logical anymore, irritability, mood swings and eventually he developed having seizures as well.”
Initially, a federal jury in Washington state awarded Hausman $21.5 million as a result of the lawsuit.
However, in early 2016, Judge Barbara Rothstein overturned the jury’s decision and ordered a new trial.
This decision was based on testimony from Hausman’s former personal assistant, Amy Mizeur, who informed Holland America that he had deleted emails that might have been detrimental to his case.
She reported observing Hausman spending several days erasing emails that should have been disclosed to Holland America’s attorneys during the discovery phase and before the jury trial.
There were also claims that Hausman failed to reveal the existence of one of his email accounts.
The judge remarked: “As a witness, [Hausman] came across evasive and untrustworthy.
“He appeared to weigh each answer, not for its truthfulness, but to assess whether it would damage his case. Mr. Hausman also seemed to capitalize on his alleged brain injury when it was convenient for him.
“He was confused or claimed memory loss when confronted with a question or exhibit that appeared to undermine his claims, yet was animated and full of information when his testimony supported his case.”
It remains uncertain if a new trial date has been set.