The whole world seems to be wishing right now that when times were better and employment was secure, they had socked away some extra funds.  The idea that people should have a reserve of extra money for a rainy day, whether due to pandemic or something more mundane, is one of the strongest contributors we have observed jurors use to justify giving big awards – sometimes even more than the plaintiff attorney asked for at trial.

When we asked during our most recent national survey who would be inclined to award more than the plaintiff attorney’s suggested amount for medical expenses “just in case,” 64 percent of the respondents said yes.  This quantitative data confirms what we have seen more and more during our focus groups – jurors who give more than the plaintiff’s demand because they are concerned that the plaintiff may run out of money to fund necessary treatment or cover unexpected emergencies, such as expenses related to COVID-19.

We saw further evidence of this trend when we gave respondents a sample case scenario in which a child was injured following a medical procedure and the plaintiff asked for $60 million.  Just 19 percent indicated they would give $60 million or less, while a full 81 percent wanted to give more.  (Shockingly, 33 percent voted to give the single plaintiff at least $120 million – double the number the plaintiff attorney had proposed.)

Interestingly, we often see during our sessions that jurors typically believe the plaintiff’s figures are exaggerated and the defense numbers are too low.  Yet when push comes to shove, when forced to name a number, they err on the side of favoring the plaintiff because, as they put it, “you never know” what could happen to a plaintiff or their family members down the road.

This perspective can be compounded when the defendant is a large corporation, or assumed to have insurance to pay an award.  With this in mind, jurors oftentimes consider damages from a “why not” outlook: “Why not give more in case there is some huge medical advance?”  “Why not give more in case a judge reduces it later?”  “Why not give more in case the family runs into hard times and needs the money?”  Frustrating, to be sure, but also helpful to recognize in advance in order to prepare yourself for a large verdict and try to inoculate the jury in advance to such arguments among the panelists.

Although this trend was consistent across gender lines, we did note some interesting demographic correlations.  The jurors most likely to award even more than the plaintiff attorney’s suggested amount “just in case” shared the following characteristics:

• Agrees that caregivers are responsible for any negative or unexpected medical outcomes that happen to a patient, regardless of whether these outcomes are due to mistakes or negligence
• African American
• Strongly supports or somewhat supports a program in which the government provides free college education to American citizens (1.5 times more likely)
• Would strongly consider awarding an amount equal to the plaintiff’s medical bills even if they don’t believe the defendant is at fault in a personal injury lawsuit
• Indicate that sympathy for an injured plaintiff might affect their verdict even if a judge tells them it shouldn’t (1.5 times more likely)
• Ages 18-44

Those more inclined not to award more “just in case” shared the following traits or beliefs:

• Would not consider unexpected medical advances, attorney fees or rising medical costs in an award
• Would not want to award more than the plaintiff’s attorney’s suggested amount for medical expenses to make sure the injured person is taken care of or “just in case” because medical costs are rising (3 times more likely)
• Would probably not or would definitely not consider awarding an amount equal to the plaintiff’s medical bills if they don’t believe the defendant is at fault in a person injury lawsuit
• Disagrees that caregivers are responsible for any negative or unexpected medical outcomes that happen to a patient, regardless of whether these outcomes are due to mistakes or negligence
• Does not believe the hospital is responsible for any mistakes the doctor makes while treating patients at that hospital, regardless of whether a doctor is a hospital employee versus an independent contractor
• Homeowner
• Caucasian
• Wouldn’t conclude a plaintiff’s case has merit just because it makes it to the trial stage
• The defendant’s status as a large corporation would not affect their award

If you would like to discuss these survey findings further or how we can apply our research to one of your pending cases, please reach out to Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 949.735.1278.  We look forward to hearing from you.

***

Pivoting During a Pandemic

With all in-person projects postponed until May at the earliest, we have turned to web conference focus groups to address our clients’ research needs in a timely fashion.  Even while travel and courts are at a standstill, there is still a strong interest in developing case strategy – especially when mediation and settlement deadlines are looming this summer.

Through Zoom and our Instant Response technology partner, we have developed an effective and innovative way to conduct focus groups that allows the same kind of challenging, juror-driven discussion you love from Jury Impact but through remote technology.  Juror predispositions, case facts, arguments, witness videos and damages can all be tested while you observe and communicate with our backroom analysts to make sure the research stays focused on your priorities.

Jurors are craving both social interaction and financial compensation right now, and this format allows your trial team to safely explore their perspectives through virtual-only research.  Contact us for more information on this approach, or a no-cost webinar to see exactly how this works.