In baseball terms, “putting some mustard on it” usually refers to a pitcher adding some heat to his throws.  This term is also sometimes used in the real estate industry, especially in the context of a bidding-war situation in which a stronger offer is needed to make sure you get the house.  Conversely, as a home seller, including the appliances in the asking price can be a version of adding a little mustard to make the deal more attractive.

This phenomenon also applies to the courtroom, as jurors often add “extras” to their awards, resulting in amounts in excess of what the plaintiff’s attorney is actually asking for.  We recently conducted a national survey of 500 jury-eligible participants to explore the factors behind jurors’ desire to put some mustard on their awards.

We have found that most jurors assume plaintiff attorneys take roughly 30 percent of any monetary awards.  As a result, jurors intent on ensuring the plaintiff is truly “made whole” will account for this when coming up with their numbers.  In our nationwide survey, 67 percent of respondents said they would most likely award more money to compensate for attorney fees – which is highly consistent with our research and trial monitoring findings.

Furthermore, it is no secret that medical costs continue to increase, which jurors absolutely factor into their awards.  This prompts jurors to add additional money to ensure an injured plaintiff doesn’t run out of money due to medical cost inflation.  In our recent survey, a strong majority 70 percent said they would award more to a plaintiff “because medical costs are rising.”

We all know that as cost inflation marches on, so does the advancement of medicine.  Notably, 66 percent of survey takers said they would award more money “in case there are unexpected medical advances.”  This provides some quantitative backing to what we frequently see in focus groups and in the courtroom – if a medical breakthrough results in an injured plaintiff becoming eligible for a new, but very expensive treatment, jurors want to make sure that person will have the financial resources to benefit from it.

The bottom line is that when jurors find in the plaintiff’s favor, most of them understandably want to make sure their award accounts for the uncertainties of the future – even if that means awarding more than what the plaintiff’s economist determines is “enough.”  Notably, 64 percent of our survey takers indicated they would 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.”

Good plaintiff attorneys play to this and remind jurors that a trial is the only chance the plaintiff will have to get compensation for an injury, unlawful termination or a broken contract.   This helps to perpetuate the notion that jurors need to “make it count” and ensure they award enough to guarantee the plaintiff won’t run out of money.

During more than 15 years of jury research, we have yet to find a way to overcome this widespread juror desire to “put a little mustard on it” when discussing damages.  Obviously the best way to deal with this phenomenon is to avoid the damages phase in the first place – highlighting the benefits of conducting jury research to find the most compelling themes, language and arguments to play to jurors’ innate sense of fairness.

If you have an upcoming case that could benefit from focus groups (live or virtual), or an online survey, please Contact Partner/Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net to find out more.

Also, to be sure you’re receiving the latest Things articles to your inbox, make sure to add us to your contacts.

Our first virtual focus group sessions happened last week, and the client reviews were phenomenal.  This client – who has now observed both our in-person and virtual research sessions – told us he would “unequivocally” recommend this approach and that “virtually nothing” was lost in the transition from in person to virtual.  With four more of these projects set for the coming weeks, we look forward to talking with you about this research alternative.

With all in-person projects postponed until June at the earliest, we have turned to virtual 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.

Through Zoom, 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 with virtual 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.