The Myth About Outrageous Jury Verdicts
Exaggerated stories of outrageous jury verdicts may sell newspapers, but the impression that they create about our civil justice system is false, distorted and dangerous.
This false impression is partly the result of a well-funded campaign by insurance companies and business interests to corrupt the attitudes of the public and thereby influence the actions of jurors and legislators.
We would all agree that everyone should have the right to seek fair compensation for injuries or damages that they have suffered due to someone else's wrongful or negligent conduct.
We would also agree that both the plaintiff and the defendant should have an equal opportunity to be heard and that the ultimate body that should determine the amount that the plaintiff should recover is a jury comprised of unbiased members of the community.
Insurance companies and business interests don't like this kind of a system because it is a system where common people have an equal voice; it is a system where they are held accountable by common people sitting as a jury, and it is a system that they cannot directly influence with their power and money. They seek to influence the system through a campaign to corrupt the attitudes of the public at large.
Unfortunately, this campaign is working. It has undermined our ability to obtain a fair and unbiased jury. More importantly, it threatens the existence of our system due to an uninformed public that demands "reform" in favor of a system that, ironically, would deprive them of rights and tilt justice in favor of insurance and business interests.
This is illustrated by a recent conversation that I had with a personal injury client, a very conservative person who told me that he never imagined that he would ever need to bring a lawsuit against someone else for personal injuries.
In the course of our conversation, my client told me that he had been a jury foreman in a medical malpractice case where he and the rest of the jury agreed that the doctor, an orthopedic surgeon, had committed malpractice which resulted in the plaintiff having a permanently deformed wrist with a limited range of motion.
"So," I asked, "how much did you award?" "That's just it," he responded, "we didn't award anything." "Why not?" I asked. He responded that he and his fellow jurors were angry because of all of the stories in the media about lawsuits and large jury verdicts. They thought that they were doing social justice in some misguided way by depriving this plaintiff of the fair compensation that she justly deserved.
You might think that this story is dubious or isolated, but juries routinely award little or no money at all for legitimate injuries where liability is clear or even admitted. Unfortunately, these cases never get reported.
One need only look at the record of jury verdicts in the personal injury cases tried in Dauphin County during the past year.
- A total of only 37 personal injury cases were tried to verdict in Dauphin County in 2001. Of these, plaintiffs won 11 and lost 26.
- Twenty-four of the 37 cases arose out of motor vehicle accidents. Plaintiffs won eight and lost 16. The juries returned verdicts for the defense in several cases where negligence was clear or even admitted. In many cases, the juries awarded very little despite serious injuries. For example, consider the case of the plaintiff who suffered spinal injuries resulting in surgery. The verdict, $5,222.14.
- Eleven of the 37 cases were for medical malpractice. Plaintiffs won 3 and lost 8. Typical is the case of the plaintiff whose bladder was cut during a hysterectomy. A laparotomy was performed to repair the bladder, but plaintiff developed severe complications including urinary incontinence and a fistula. The verdict, $250,000.00.
- Two of the 37 cases were for alleged premises liability. Plaintiffs won none and lost two.
- Punitive damages were not awarded in any cases.
These results are representative of jury verdicts around the Commonwealth. Dauphin County is not unusual among Pennsylvania's 67 counties, and is more liberal than many.
You may be thinking that these results are not really representative because most cases are settled, and it is true that most cases are settled. However, in our system where the plaintiff's lawyer is only paid if he or she recovers money, where the plaintiff's lawyer is footing the expenses of the claim and with jury verdicts like these, the plaintiff's lawyer is very selective and only takes good cases. This is especially true in the medical malpractice area.
Despite the true facts about what really happens in our civil jury system, the hysteria created by exaggerated stories of large jury verdicts has supplanted reality in the minds of the uninformed public. While these stories may sell newspapers, the impression that they create is false, distorted and dangerous.
