ThePopTort

How Civil Lawsuits Can Mitigate our Nation’s Crises

In nearly every state, as well as in Congress, proposals abound to limit the rights of Americans to use the civil justice system. The fundamental PR message of corporate and other special interests behind these proposals is that the civil justice system is somehow harmful to us as a nation, instead of something to be proud of. They use alarmist, prejudicial and unsubstantiated data to make their case, while we use scientific, objective and fully substantiated data to make ours. I think if we’ve learned anything over the last four years, it is that our approach is not only correct but also on the right side of history.

And today, we’ve got the receipts.

The Center for Justice & Democracy has a new study, called Lifesavers 2021: CJ&D’s Guide to Lawsuits that Protect Us All. The study describes over 125 lawsuits that have led to major health and safety improvements benefiting large numbers of people, spanning over 50 years. These cases have not only saved lives but also show us how to mitigate some of today’s most dire crises.

Take hate groups. The report describes a number of cases brought from the 1980s through the 2000s by the Southern Poverty Center, which accomplished what the criminal justice system could not: putting them out of businesses. The report notes, “Civil lawsuits by hate crime victims were used effectively to bankrupt several white supremacists and Nazi organizations, while also directly responding to the financial needs of victims.” While some groups may be operating differently today, civil liability remains an important tool that attorneys should explore.

Take COVID-19. Lifesavers includes cases recently brought against disease-ridden COVID-19 super-spreader establishments, resulting in safer workplaces. These cases have been necessary because many essential businesses and services, which have been operating throughout this pandemic, have not followed best practices and have endangered their own workforce and customers. Many have not been supportive of sick employees, forcing them to work, threatening dismissal unless they do and greatly contributing to infection-spread throughout the country. As with the dismantling of hate groups, lawsuits by workers – unusual as they may be –  are a critical safety tool that must be available. The corporate push for business and health care liability shields must stop.

Finally, take police brutality. The crises of police brutality and racial injustice in law enforcement cry out for solutions. One idea has emerged as a starting point: abolishing the doctrine of “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil liability when they kill or injure someone using excessive force, brutality or other misconduct. Fortunately for victims and their families, qualified immunity does not prevent police departments from being held accountable. Many suits have been brought and resulted in important changes to policies and practices, including serving as a tool for police departments to identify and remedy potential widespread abuses. Lifesavers highlights many of these cases.

Our nation is not harmed when the rights of injured, sick and violated individuals are vindicated through the civil courts. We all benefit from civil justice and from the corresponding deterrence of unsafe or illegal misconduct. Over the last 40 years, the civil justice system has been battered. But as Lifesavers shows, after 245 years and just as the nation’s founders had hoped, the system still works.

Litigation Shouldn’t Be Necessary - But It Is, and Our Founders Knew It

Very few injured Americans file lawsuits. Granted it’s been awhile since anyone took an empirical look at the numbers, but when Rand’s Institute for Civil Justice did so 1991, researchers found that only 2 percent of injured Americans file lawsuits. The National Center for State Courts recently provided another perspective: “Tort cases garner a great deal of public interest but generally account for only about 4 percent of [state court] Civil caseloads….” 

It takes a lot for someone to bring a lawsuit. Those who do have good reason. Parents may need compensation for a catastrophically-injured child. Someone suffering discrimination or assault might seek justice because other systems have failed them. Others may sue to stop corporate or professional misconduct, to prevent others from suffering the same way. There are lots of possible reasons why people go to court, but the one underlying truth is that few injured people actually ever do it. And that’s even though more and more people are getting injured as corporate misconduct and professional negligence increase.  

Take healthcare, for example. Two stories this week explain two extremely disturbing new trends that scream out for legal accountability. First, according to a Bloomberg story titled “When Wall Street Took Over This Nursing Company, Profits Grew and Patients Suffered,”

Under the control of two prominent private-equity firms, Bain Capital LP and J.H. Whitney Capital Partners LLC, Aveanna [Healthcare] has left a trail of injury and death in some of the biggest states where it does business.…

At least seven children have died in Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado. In these fatalities, reported over the past year, health officials found that Aveanna’s nurses failed to check vital signs, follow emergency procedures, appear for their shifts or give the proper doses of medicine.…

[I]nternal company documents reveal financial incentives that favor corporate growth and cost-cutting over clinical care. In interviews, more than a dozen former Aveanna employees described how the pressure to meet financial goals jeopardized the quality of care for children.

Second, in the Washington Post, a story ran titled, “Health-care system causing rampant burnout among doctors, nurses; As many as half of all clinicians suffer from the problem, creating risks to patients, malpractice claims and absenteeism, study finds.” The title says it all.

Of course, health care is far from the only problem area. For example, last week a “damning report” was released from a multiagency task force that heavily faulted the Federal Aviation Administration for actions that led to two Boeing crashes in five months, killing 346 people. They found, among other things, that the FAA “relied heavily on Boeing employees to vouch for the safety of the Max and lacked the ability to effectively analyze much of what Boeing did share about the new plane.”

The Center for Progressive Reform’s recent report, “Regulation as Social Justice,” discusses “four broad contributing factors that help explain the current weakened state of the U.S. regulatory system: weak and outdated laws; unnecessary implementation barriers facing agencies; excessive corporate influence; and obstacles to meaningful public participation.”

Some of the problem stems from the growth of dark corporate money into our democracy. Since the 1980s, corporate lobbyists, using a gross imbalance of advocacy resources, have made tremendous strides weakening safety laws and standards for prevention of harm and protection against hazards. If you suffer discrimination or are harmed by toxic air, leaded drinking water, unsafe products, dangerous workplaces, or cheating banks, you likely lack the wealth or power to meaningfully participate in the legislative or executive branches of government to correct those problems or get some relief.

So it’s left to the third branch, the courts. The courts have and continue to provide a check on official or arbitrary misuse of power, corporate abuses, violations of civil liberties and civil rights and even the actions of violent criminals when, as often happens, the criminal justice system fails victims. (See, e.g., Center for Justice & Democracy studies such as Lifesavers, a Guide to Lawsuits that Protect Us All; First Class Relief, How Class Actions Benefit Those Who Are Injured, Defrauded and Violated; and, The Importance of Civil Justice to Sexual Assault Survivors and the Devastating Consequences of Tort Reform.

Because money and politics dominate the executive and legislative branches, we end up seeing stories like today’s, “Consumer Class Actions Nearly Tripled in the Past Decade” … “with cases over data privacy and unwanted text messages behind the increase.” As Laura Hopkins, a legal data expert at Lex Machina, put it, “You could classify that as more catastrophic events are happening to a large group of people.” In fact, access to the courts may be more important today than ever, with regulatory oversight of bad corporate actors or corporate practices virtually ground to a halt in many areas.

As the CJ&D reports (mentioned above) show, lawsuits have led to changes in the design and manufacture of automobiles, defective firearms, aircraft, consumer products, drugs and medical devices too many to name, particularly those designed for women, hospital and medical procedures, swimming pool drains, chain saws, tractors, lawn punch presses. Lawsuits have bankrupted hate groups, exposed police and other official misconduct, improved public and workplace safety.

Lawsuits have also exposed and held accountable entire industries engaged in massive corporate crimes and coverups, with tobacco being one well-known example but also product liability litigation that exposed a lethal 50-year coverup by the asbestos industry that led to millions of deaths. Some have equated what the asbestos industry did to mass murder. And as we recently reported, the ongoing opioid litigation is another example where courts have stepped in to hold accountable an industry that profited from knowingly fraudulent and dangerous marketing and sales activities resulting in a public health crisis with which we are all familiar.

It’s not surprising, then, that corporations that may have blocked regulatory oversight only to be forced to change their practices because of lawsuits, are constantly attacking judges and juries that rule for victims and plaintiffs. This strategy has been part of the so-called ”tort reform” movement since at least the 1980s. But there are reasons why they will not and should not succeed. Unlike other, weaker democracies which have abolished the civil jury, the jury's roots are deeper here. The American colonists fought the Revolutionary War in significant part over England's repeated attempts to restrict jury trials. The U.S. Constitution was nearly defeated over its failure to guarantee the right to civil jury trial. (The Seventh Amendment eventually resolved the problem.)

As the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once put it, “The right of trial by jury in civil cases at common law is fundamental to our history and jurisprudence.... A right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen, whether guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by statute, should be jealously guarded....” 

And that’s true whether or not we ever go to court.

Juries: The Pendulum Swings Back

It wasn’t too long ago – 2 and a half years to be exact - that we analogized what seemed to be growing disrespect for civil jurors, to a Rodney Dangerfield routine.  (“People who serve on civil juries can’t get no respect from anyone this week,” we exclaimed.) But lately it’s been a bit of a different story.

On June 14, the Kansas Supreme Court did something both extraordinary and something it should have done a long time ago: provide real meaning to Section 5 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, which states, “The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate.” 

You see, back in the 1980s, Kansas politicians took a direct swipe at Section 5 by severely and broadly capping non-economic damages for injury victims. Non-economic damages are for very real injuries, such as brain damage, loss of limb, loss of reproductive ability, blindness, and other kinds of suffering and lost quality of life. Caps on compensation apply regardless of what jurors, who make decisions based on evidence they hear in a case, say compensation should be.

And in 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court decided Section 5's authors didn’t really mean “inviolate.” Instead, it “transform[ed] what the people made inviolate into something violable at will” and upheld the cap even though it directly infringed on the power and authority of juries to decide cases. This decision made no sense to many – and now, it appears, it also made no sense to the 2019 Kansas Supreme Court. So joining perhaps another unexpected court decision striking down Oklahoma’s equally-problematic cap in April, the Kansas court struck down the Kansas cap in June. 

As a result of these two 2019 decisions, less than half the states (24) now cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. And only nine cap non-economic damages generally. The momentum is definitely in the “no-cap” direction. 

We’re so glad that judges are weighing-in on the correct side of this issue. It should be known that judges, who have more intimate knowledge of the system than anyone, generally have a high level of day-to-day confidence in civil juries. This year, the National Judicial College asked judges “About how often do you disagree with the jury’s verdict?” Among the findings from the just released survey:

Eighty-two percent of the 446 judges who responded said they disagree less than 25 percent of the time. The majority who left comments said the jury usually gets it right, and it is not a judge’s job to second guess their decision.”

Wrote one judge (anonymously, as was most often the case with the comments): “When you hear the voice of a dozen people speak in unison, it is rare that they get it wrong.”

Juries rule, as they say. And as they should.

Law Day: Out of the Mouths of Jurors

Many judges and scholars have written eloquently in defense of the civil jury, warning against even limited intrusions into the right to civil jury trial. Take the late conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who once wrote, “The right of trial by jury in civil cases at common law is fundamental to our history and jurisprudence....  A right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen, whether guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by statute, should be jealously guarded....” 

So true. Yet some of the most powerful sentiments about civil juries come not from judges or scholars, but from jurors themselves. Jurors are just ordinary people randomly chosen from the community, making decisions about society’s tolerance (or intolerance) for certain types of behavior, deliberating and rendering verdicts, and then fading anonymously back into the community. It’s an incredible system.

Despite being enshrined in the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and nearly every state constitution, the civil jury system has been under siege for several decades now. The power and authority of civil jurors, who cannot be bought-off by special interests, represent a tremendous threat to the power structure in this country. Today, between so-called “tort reform” laws in most states, the recent proliferation of forced arbitration, and the dramatic decrease in civil jury trials, the entire system is on shaky ground. So what to do?

Here's one thing we might try. In all the political fighting around these issues, sometimes we forget to listen to those at the core of this debate - jurors themselves. Why do civil juries do what they do, and how do they feel when their power is taken away? There are two main reasons juries render verdicts for plaintiffs. One is to provide fair and adequate compensation to the injured.  Second is to hold wrongdoers accountable. Here are just a few examples – in their own words.

Compensation to the injured

1. The case of James Todd Beason 

James Todd Beason, an Texas oilfield worker, was severely injured when a crane fell on him, leading to two amputations on his left arm. He now “lives daily with severe nerve pain and has several other health complications as a result.” When he sued the company in Oklahoma, he and his wife were awarded $9 million in economic damages and $6 million in noneconomic damages. Little did the jury know, however (because they were not told), that Oklahoma’s state lawmakers had capped noneconomic damages at $350,000. So the judge was forced to drastically reduce this verdict.

As recently reported in Tulsa World,

Beason said he will never forget the reaction of the jury when they were told about the cap.

“Grown men and women came outside and were in tears,” he said. “I remember a gentleman came up and he was bawling. He was crying. He said, ‘We thought we were doing the right thing. We thought we were taking care of you and your family.’”

Fortunately, the Oklahoma Supreme Court was listening, and just recently invalidated the $350,000 cap, finding it unconstitutional.  Chalk one up for those jurors!

2. The case of Stephen Olsen

Steven Olsen is blind and brain damaged because, as a jury ruled, he was a victim of medical malpractice when he was two years old.  He fell on a stick in the woods while hiking. The family’s HMO refused to do an $800 CAT scan, which would have detected a growing brain mass caused by the stick.  

When they sued the HMO, a jury awarded $7.1 million in noneconomic damages for Steven’s avoidable life of suffering. But the judge was forced to cut this award to $250,000, the amount of California’s noneconomic compensation cap. This outraged the jury. Jury foreman Thomas Kearns then wrote a letter published in the San Diego Union Tribune, in which he described how they had reached their verdict:

“We viewed video of Steven, age 2, shortly before the accident. This beautiful child talked and shrieked with laughter as any other child at play. Later, Steven was brought to the court and we watched as he groped, stumbled and felt his way along the front of the jury box.  There was no chatter or happy laughter.  Steven is doomed to a life of darkness, loneliness and pain. He is blind, brain damaged and physically retarded.  He will never play sports, work, or enjoy normal relationships with his peers.  His will be a lifetime of treatment, therapy, prosthesis fitting and supervision around the clock.”

This anti-jury cap is still the law in California.

Accountability

1. Whirlpool

Some years ago, an Alabama jury reached a $581 million verdict against Whirlpool, which had dealers all over the state soliciting — door-to-door — poor, unsophisticated and elderly customers to purchase satellite-TV dishes for $1,100 plus 22 percent interest.  The same equipment could be bought at an electronics store for $199, amounting to an effective interest rate of 300 percent.  One witness who was sold a satellite dish was legally blind. Another had less than a 5th grade education.  A former agent who later quit testified that Whirlpool specifically targeted illiterate and unsophisticated people, and that he had trained others to lie about the terms of the financing which included a deceptive credit card scheme.

Why $581 million? A juror who spoke to one of the lawyers in the case said that the jury was “sick” at how Whirlpool treated poor, uneducated people, misrepresenting to them from the very start.  The juror also said the jury was “inflamed” that there were still “thousands of people out there” who were victims of the scheme, but that Whirlpool had not helped those people.  They felt their verdict was important “to get their Whirlpool’s attention.”  (See more here.)

The verdict was eventually cut nearly in half – to $300 million – and the parties later settled for an undisclosed sum. Within a couple weeks of that case the Alabama legislature passed a law capping punitive damages.

2. McDonald’s Coffee Case.

In the documentary film, Hot Coffee, which tells the story of the often unfairly-maligned McDonald’s coffee case, two jurors described why the jury decided to hit the company with $2.7 million in punitive damages (later reduced by the judge). An article in Reader’s Digest explains:

The trial revealed that [plaintiff Stella] Liebeck was not alone. McDonald’s had received more than 700 complaints about burns from hot beverages over the previous ten-year period.… “There was a person behind every number, and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,” juror Betty Farnham told the Wall Street Journal.

After seven days of testimony and four hours of deliberation, the jurors sided with Liebeck. They awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages. But because she caused the spill, they reduced the amount to $160,000. The jurors then awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which, they reasoned, was equivalent to about two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee sales. The total was $2,735,000 more than Liebeck’s lawsuit had requested.

“The only way you can get the attention of a big company [is] to make punitive damages against them,” said juror Marjorie Getman. “And we thought this was a very small punitive damage.”

Jurors are understandably angry when they find out that their efforts to be fair and just are cheapened and devalued.  As we celebrate Law Day today, it is important to be aware that we are reaching a new level of disrespect for the civil jury system in this country. The nation’s founders would clearly be angry too.

Forced Arbitration: Frontier Justice in America’s Legal System

Next time you’re talking to a corporate CEO, ask them this: Suppose the company found itself in court for one reason or another.  The judge had no legal training. The process had no real rules. The judge was neither required to follow law nor issue a written legal opinion. Once the judge ruled, their decision was enforceable with the full weight of the law even though it might be legally incorrect. And it all happened in secret. No legal precedent could ever be established to guide the company’s – or any other company’s – future conduct. Would you consider this a system that promotes legal predictability and certainty for businesses, or not?

I think we all know the answer. Yet what I just described are critical elements of “forced arbitration.” We usually talk about forced arbitration as a corporate-designed private, secretive process of dispute resolution rigged against consumers, employees, and small businesses. But for corporations who must rely on a strong, stable civil justice system for guidance on how to act, it’s unpredictable, uncertain, and mostly useless. And that’s exactly the point Rep. Katie Porter made in her questioning last week of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Quaadman, at a U.S. House hearing called, “Putting Investors First: Reviewing Proposals to Hold Executives Accountable.”

The context of her questioning was the concern that the Securities and Exchange Commission might be willing to succumb to extremist pressure and, for the first time, allow public companies to force defrauded investors into private arbitration to resolve securities disputes. Such a process would not only harm investors, but also would undermine “the crucial role shareholder lawsuits play in deterring financial fraud and protecting the integrity of U.S. capital markets.” 

Getting directly at the arbitration problems described above, Rep. Porter asked Mr. Quaadman, “Do you think the certainty of law is important to companies?” and “Is legal uncertainty positive?” Immediately he knew where she was going. As she tried to nail him, he did his best to slither out of it, ultimately pivoting the discussion to a completely different system, called FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). She wasn’t asking about FINRA. FINRA rules would not apply to shareholder arbitration. But she let it go.  

Huge props to her, however, for starting this conversation. Clarity. Predictability. Certainty. These are recurrent themes coursing through the business community’s arguments for “tort reform.” “Business certainty” is the reason states cap punitive damages and enact a myriad of liability limits. It’s the reason Congress sometimes considers federalizing state tort laws. It’s the reason corporate groups seek to establish uniform legal standards, curtail federal agency power, preempt state tort remedies, or otherwise block plaintiffs’ access to the courts. Corporations make this argument to legislators. They argue it to judges. They argue it to federal agencies. No branch or level of government has been exempt.

Please, take their word for it:

• Sponsors of 2011 Tennessee legislation capping damages: “This new law will provide certainty and predictability for businesses.”
• The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Civil Justice Task Force:  [We] are at the fore-front of efforts to restore fairness and predictability to state civil justice systems … that treats defendants in a consistent manner.”
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “[A]bsence of uniformity [in the law] creates damaging uncertainty for businesses in this sector.… [U]ncertainty about the scope of a federal statute has harmful consequences for any national business whose conduct is regulated by that statute.” 
• National Association of Manufacturers: State tort claims should be preempted because they subject businesses to “uncertain, unpredictable” liability. 
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers: Venue and personal jurisdiction rules “give[] a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.…" This “[p]redictability is valuable to corporations making business and investment decisions.”
• Coalition to Save Local Businesses (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, and the International Franchise Association): Expanding liability under labor laws “would cause uncertainty for businesses.”
• National Small Business Association: State by state products liability laws “create uncertainty for businesses selling in a national marketplace.”
• George Mason University School of Law: Competition is harmed “[i]f businesses are unsure about where the line between legal and illegal behavior is drawn.”

Even when it comes to investor protection, they make the argument.  Here’s the U.S. Chamber, again: To foreign investors, the legal system can be “a source of significant investor uncertainty” and “international investors are not alone in that concern. It is a concern that is shared by U.S. businesses in general.” And while we generally agree with none of that, one thing is clearly true: the last thing the U.S. Chamber should support now is a legal system for investors that’s secret, with no trained judges, no rules, no record, no decisions with any precedential value and which actually might be legally wrong, and provide basically nothing to help companies establish what’s legal and what’s not. 

Big business lobbyists like to complain about the unpredictability of jury awards even though data show them to be generally consistent and conservative. But when it comes to unqualified legal uncertainty for defendants, forced arbitration wins that contest by orders of magnitude. It’s about as uncertain, unpredictable and unclear as a legal system could be.  

It's Tamper Time!

Big corporations that harm people but don’t want to be held accountable, are nothing if not creative. Lobbying for laws that take power and authority away from civil juries, check. Buying judges, check. Forcing disputes into secretive systems that they control, check. Trying to convince everyday Americans that stripping away their constitutional rights is a good thing, check. (I would cite some earlier PopTorts as evidence of this but we’d be here all day.)

But if the goal is to flip the legal playing field so dramatically in their favor so they never lose a case, why stop there?  There is tampering to be done!

In Dallas, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade is bringing in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI to investigate after plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier “raised concerns Monday about possible witness tampering” by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics. According to law.com:

The issue came up after orthopedic surgeon Dr. David Shein filed an affidavit in Alicea v. DePuy Orthopaedics Sunday night alleging that a DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. sales representative told him during a surgery-related conversation at his hospital in the Bronx on Oct. 13 that “there could be ramifications” for the doctor’s medical practice in connection with his upcoming Dallas testimony.

Shein said in the affidavit that the sales rep complained to him that the lawyers were “peppering him” and the “business in Dallas was freaking [him] out.” Shein said in the affidavit that the sales rep told him DePuy lawyers had contacted him on Oct. 12 and that the conversation made him anxious.

“He said the lawyers were ‘on him like crazy.’ They were putting ‘big time pressure’ on him,” Shein wrote in the affidavit about his conversation with the sales rep.

DePuy’s defense team (which apparently includes U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawyer John Beisner, a partner at Skadden Arps in Washington, D.C.) denies all this – but then asked for a gag order. Which the judge denied.

This story reminds me of a recent fascinating academic article about corporate influence over jury pools, called “Buying the Verdict.”  The researchers:

document strong evidence that firms systematically increase specialized, locally targeted advertising following the firm being taken to trial in a given location - precisely following initiation of the suit. … Moreover, firms concentrate these strategic increases in locations where the return on their advertising dollars are largest: in smaller, more concentrated advertising markets where fewer competitor firms are advertising. They focus their advertisement spikes specifically toward jury trials, and in fact specifically toward the most likely jury pool. Lastly, we find that the prevalence and intensity of this behavior is increasing over time.

This seems similar to what insurance companies used to do in the 1970s and 1980, when they ran ads with false information meant to influence jury pools to rule against plaintiffs or to lower verdicts.  At least one court considered these ads "jury tampering."

Specifically, in the 1978 case Quinn v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., the New York Supreme Court said these ads "violate[d] the state public policy against jury tampering, unduly burden[ed] plaintiffs' right to an impartial jury, and distort[ed] the trial process by providing otherwise inadmissible insurance evidence..." Moreover, because the ads contained so many inaccuracies, two companies - Crum and Foster and Aetna - were forced to sign consent orders with state insurance commissioners in Connecticut and Kansas, agreeing to stop publishing these ads. (Kronzer, “Jury Tampering – 1978 Style,” 10 St. Mary’s L.J. 399 (1979) at 400, n. 9.)

The great Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu once said: never take over the world to tamper with it. Those who want to tamper with it are not fit to take over the world.  Somehow, this seems awfully fitting.

Civil Jurors Deserve More Respect

To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, people who serve on civil juries can’t get no respect from anyone this week.

In Iowa, a local judge has vacated an August verdict which awarded about $1.6 million to a young woman whose ear was torn off in a rollover crash. The judge did this because she said jurors were “influenced by certain statements her attorney [Nick Rowley] made at trial that the defense [i.e. an insurance company] has argued were improper." This “prejudiced the defendant and ‘it is probable a different result would have been reached, but for that misconduct.’”

Only problem is, the jury forewoman said that was ridiculous, that these statements were not even discussed by the jury. WTF?

[Forewoman] Karen Hudecek said it was her job to make sure deliberations and decisions were based on the law and evidence presented.

“I understood that this meant we as the jury were not supposed to consider or base our decision on anything said by the lawyers, which was objected to and sustained by the judge. There was nothing said by any of the lawyers which was objected to and sustained that was discussed by the jury in deliberations. None of the statements addressed by Mr. Rowley in the new trial order of Judge Lingreen influenced our deliberations or our unanimous jury verdict,” Hudecek said. …

“In the end, we worked hard as an Iowa jury and we as the jury worked together to compromise and agree to a verdict that was based on the law we were given and the evidence the judge instructed us we were able to consider.…

Rowley said he believes the judge has bowed to the power of the defendant’s insurance company.

Now granted, this type of bad judicial behavior is atypical. Most judges have enormous respect for juries and “a high level of day-to-day confidence” in what they do. See more here.

Far more worrisome is the behavior of politicians, who continuously try to take power and authority away from jurors in the form of so-called “tort reform.” Caps on damages are probably the worst offender. Indeed, as we reported in April, the Ohio Supreme Court had a case before it, examining whether to allow a sexual assault victim to be victimized - again - by the state’s $250,000 non-economic damages cap.

Specifically, “Jessica Simpkins was raped at the age of 15 by her church pastor – a man hired by Grace Brethren Church in Sunbury despite the knowledge that he had previously sexually abused two girls. In a civil suit, a jury awarded Simpkins $3.5 million for pain and suffering, but the amount was reduced to $250,000 due to a state law that caps damages.” Indeed, a recent article in Slate explored the horrendous impact of non-economic damages caps on sexual assault victims.

[A]s more and more victims of sexual assault are taking their cases to the civil justice system, the caps are having unforeseen consequences. “If you rape a child, you get the benefit of tort reform,” says Simpkins’ lawyer John Fitch. Tort reform, he adds, “makes it financially impractical for children like this to hold those responsible accountable in the legal system.”

Well guess who just came to the aide of Jessica Simpkins’ rapist (who is apparently now out of jail), and the civil juries who try to hold rapists accountable? That’s right, the Ohio Supreme Court just upheld the state’s damages cap as specifically used against Jessica Simpkins. (Here’s the decision)

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O'Neill wrote withering dissents castigating lawmakers for imposing limits on civil lawsuit damages, a decision they said should be up to juries.

“It turns out that ‘tort reform’ (and the justices who sanctioned it) also ensured that rapists and those who enable them will not have to pay the full measure of damages they cause -- even it they rape a child,” Pfeifer wrote. He said the damage caps were “designed to protect doctors and corporate interests.”

O’Neill wrote: “I cannot accept the proposition that a teenager who is raped by a pastor fits into a preordained formula for damages ... a cookie-cutter approach simply does not work.

“This child was raped in a church office by a minister and a duly empaneled jury established an appropriate level of compensation for loss of her childhood innocence. We have no right to interfere with that process. Shame on the General Assembly. The children are watching. And I for one do not like what they are seeing,” O’Neill concluded.

What is wrong with this country?! Rodney? Anyone?

Erin Andrews’ Exemplary Jury

Photo by Neon Tommy

Most Americans know barely anything about our judicial system, and the civil jury is one of its least understood features. Even groups involved with law-related education focus little attention, if any, on civil juries. Few probably know that the right to jury trial was a key issue over which the American Revolution was fought, or that the failure to secure the right to civil jury trial in the Constitution almost caused its defeat. And who really understands how civil juries check corporate, government and professional irresponsibility?

Forget law schools. No group seems better equipped to provide this kind of “education” than civil jurors themselves. Study after study shows that immediately after a trial, jurors have very strong impressions about their experiences. Almost all will say the experience was positive and that the system works well. (See more here.) But understandably, you won’t find many civil jurors willing to talk to the media about their experiences after a trial. Actually, it’s probably more rare that news reporters would even care what a juror had to say in the typical civil case.

So how great is it to see a bunch of news reports today quoting jurors who recently served in the very high-profile Erin Andrews “peep hole” case against Marriott and her stalker, particularly juror Terry Applegate? News outlets from NBC News to People Magazine took the time to interview her as to why the “jury of five men and seven women on Monday ordered [stalker] Michael Barrett – who served more than two years in prison for the 2008 incident – to pay the Fox Sports reporter about $28 million with the companies that operate the Nashville Marriott paying the remaining $27 million.” Here’s what she told The Tennessean:

"We considered not only the impact [the verdict] had on Erin Andrews, but also the message, I guess you might say, that might be provided to the hotel industry overall ... I truly appreciated the opportunity to do it, although it was difficult and lengthy, I think it’s true of every juror. We all remarked about how impressed we are about our judicial system here in the United States."

Indeed, more than any other single institution, juries give everyday people the chance to participate in government, which enhances their regard for the American system of justice. As this case shows, civil jurors are competent, responsible and rational, and their decisions are not arbitrary or emotional, but reflect continually changing community attitudes about corporate responsibility and accountability.

In her statements, Ms. Applegate thanked Erin Andrews for bravely bringing this case. We certainly agree and thank her dedicated legal team, as well. But let’s thank juror Applegate, too. She has helped us all understand - the system really works.

Take Our New “Tort Litigation” Quiz!

We told you we might be back with another PopTort Pop Quiz, and we weren’t kidding!  And now that everyone's back to school ... It’s time for our “Tort Litigation Quiz”! 

Let’s set the stage with our first question, shall we? It should help with the rest:

1. What percentage of civil cases are “tort” lawsuits?

a. Less than 10%
b. 25%
c. 50%
d. More than 75%

The answer is “a”, and the number is just 7%. Or to put it another way, 93% of civil cases have nothing whatsoever to do with personal injuries. So who exactly is “sue-happy” in America? You’ll find out soon!

Bonus question: Which of the above percentages represents the number of civil cases involving contracts and small claims cases?

That would be: “d.” Actually, it’s 80%. See question #2 to understand what kinds of cases we're talking about.

Explains the National Center for State Court (NCSC), “The picture of contemporary litigation that emerges … is very different from the one suggested in debates about the contemporary civil justice system. State court caseloads are dominated by lower-value contract and small claims cases rather than high-value commercial and tort cases.”

2. What types of lawsuits constitute most of these “contract” cases that are flooding the courts? Are they:

a. Consumers suing banks?
b. Consumers suing credit card companies?
c. Consumers suing health insurance companies?
d. None of the above

The answer, of course, is “d.” Consumers aren’t suing much at all - for anything. They’re the ones being sued.

According to NCSC, contract caseloads consist “primarily of debt collection (37%), landlord/tenant (29%), and foreclosure (17%) cases.” Moreover, says NCSC, from 2005 to 2010, “contract caseloads increased 52 percent (10.5% per annum), much of it occurring in 2008 with the onset of the recession.” (emphasis added.) In addition, “[l]ong-term NCSC data show a 63 percent increase in contract litigation in 13 states from 1999 to 2008. In contrast, tort filings fell by 25 percent in those same states during the same ten-year period.”

So who’s sue-happy in America? That would be banks and lenders, that’s who.

Back to torts.

3. What percentage of tort cases are decided by judges or juries?

a. 80%
b. 50%
c. 25%
d. 15%

The answer is “d.” Says NCSC, “Only 15 percent of tort cases were disposed by judgment.”

4. What percentage of the civil caseload is made up of those high-profile medical malpractice or products liability cases?

a. Less than 1%
b. 10%
c. 40%
d. 75%

The answer is “a.” Says NCSC, “Although medical malpractice and product liability cases often generate a great deal of attention and criticism, they comprise…less than 1% of the total civil caseload....”

But what about the ones that do reach a jury? Aren’t jury verdicts huge?  Let’s find out.

5. Seventy-five percent of tort judgments are:

a. Less than $5 million
b. Less than $1 million
c. Less than $100,000
d. Less than $20,000
e. None of the above
f. All of the above

You guessed it. The answer is “f”, all of the above! Seventy-five percent of tort judgments are less than $12,200! And as to juries specifically, NCSC found that “50 percent of jury awards in tort cases were $30,000 or less, and 75 percent of jury awards in tort cases were less than $152,000. Jury awards exceeded $500,000 in only 17 cases (3% of cases in which judgment exceeded zero), and exceeded $1 million in only 13 cases (2%).”

For more great stuff, get the Center for Justice & Democracy’s new briefing book, Tort Litigation: By the Numbers. 

And if you are interested in medical malpractice statistics, you can find those in our continuously updated Medical Malpractice Briefing Book: By the Numbers. 

So study up.  You know we’ll be back.

Huff Post Repost: Respecting the Seventh Amendment

There are few democratic institutions in America more embattled than the civil justice system. No matter what one thinks of "tort reform," the political term often used to describe laws to weaken this system, one thing is clear: For the last 35 years, questions about the future of civil juries have been dumped on the plate of Congress and every statehouse in America. Many legislatures have been pressured to undermine the civil jury system by restricting access to the courts and limiting juries' power and authority. We are seeing more proposals to limit the right to jury trial than ever before.

If the framers of our Constitution were alive today, they would be appalled by this development. Our nations' founders considered the right to trial by jury in civil cases to be one of our most important rights. In virtually every major document and speech delivered before the Revolution, the colonists portrayed trial by jury as, if not their greatest right, one that was indispensable. The right to civil jury trial was a key issue over which the American Revolution was fought. It was so essential to our nation's founders that they preserved it directly in the Bill or Rights as the 7th Amendment. In a 1979 case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist explained:

Keep reading.