Yesterday, after a four day jury trial, my client won a case that has been consuming a lot of my time over the past few years — not to mention occupying a good bit of office space with 8 or 9 bankers boxes full of documents. My satisfaction in this is tempered a good bit by the fact that our co-defendants, good people, got hit by a big verdict that confirms my notion that the American public is largely innumerate.
The verdict amount was not at all supported by the evidence. I’m biased because I have gotten so close to the case, but I don’t think I’m just being cranky. Using the Plaintiff’s numbers, the verdict had to be based on, among other things, a multiplier that the witness characterized as “a wild guess,” a loan that was used for a lot of other expenses in addition to the one that was the subject of the lawsuit, and futures price fluctuations that can’t remotely be characterized as any of the defendants’ fault.
I’m glad my client won, but it’s hard to have a lot of faith in the system when the numbers just don’t add up. It will go up to the Court of Appeals, but they are bound by a body of law committed to the legal fiction that juries understand the instructions and the relevant facts.
It was a breach of contract case, and the facts arguably supported an inference that there was a breach. But the damages attributable to that breach as opposed to other factors simply weren’t even 25% of what the verdict amount was. That’s the kind of thing that makes a lawyer cautious and inclined to pay more than a claim is worth for a settlement just to avoid uncertainty and exposure to jackpot justice.
Kind of makes me think that we should have “professional jurors”. Some years ago, I served as a juror on several murder trials.
I remember one lady insisted that the defendant was guilty because of “womans intuition”.
Another juror was willing to vote either way depending on how quickly he could get it over with so he could be with his girl friend.
I could probably think of other examples. Anyway, the system sure seems to need some upgrading.
It’s easy for me to believe that “jackpot justice” occurs pretty often.
I have experienced both. My last trial involved a jury that, despite several college educated members, didn’t seem to understand comparative fault much at all. Fortunately, the jury bought my argument on damages and awarded the damage number I offered in closing.
Prior to that, I had two juries that applied the court’s instructions to the letter. In one, the jury wanted to award the plaintiff something, but felt they could not based upon the jury instructions. You never know what you will get regardless of the side upon which you litigate, and that is why most of us settle most of our cases long before trial.