The Myth of the Jackpot Jury

By John L. Messina

Do juries give away too much money?  Many think so, but that is a myth.  Let me tell you about a recent trial that I mentioned in an earlier blog.  It is just one of many cases in the nation that debunk the myth.

My client, a 70-year old man, was walking into a local supermarket.  The store had set up displays in the entrance.  His view of those was blocked by a large crush of people in the narrow area between displays.  As he walked toward the front door, he did not notice that a watermelon pallet to his left had a protruding edge.  He caught his foot on the edge, tripped and fell. 

As a result of the fall, the client badly injured his shoulder and required surgery and a long period of rehabilitation.  His shoulder never fully recovered.  He will have pain and disability for the rest of his life.

The jury in the case accepted that the store was at least partially at fault, that the client was injured and that all of his claimed bills of about $48,000.00 should be allowed.  However, that jury awarded nothing for the injuries, the pain and suffering, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life.  Then the final blow came when they found him 90 percent at fault, thereby reducing his award by 90 percent, so that his recovery is about $4,800.00 in total.  So much for jackpot juries.

Fortunately, my client will probably get a new trial based on what this jury did. However, having to do it all over again is not the best form of justice.

The next time you hear someone complain about juries giving away tons of money, remind them that there are many cases like my client's.  Most important, tell them that in almost all civil cases, it is the party being sued or their insurance carrier who have requested the case to be heard by a jury.  Would they do that if “jackpot” juries were the norm?

Trip and falls are not always cut and dry

We at MBC handle a variety of injury cases.  Some are clear cut and involve catastrophic injuries.  Others are not absolutely clear cut and may involve injuries that are not catastrophic.   My next trial is such a case, but it will be given the same preparation and treatment as all cases.

This case involves a 70-year old man who tripped and fell over a pallet underneath a box of watermelons at the local grocery store.  He landed on his right side, injuring his shoulder and having to undergo surgery. 

The pallet was the same color as the box and one could hardly see the four to six inches that the pallet protruded from the box.  Store employees had “pallet guards,” which were soft devices to put around the edges of the pallets to prevent tripping.  They forgot to put them on this particular day.  That would seem like a clear cut case, but the store says it is not at fault, that our client should have seen the protrusion and, in any event, he was old and his shoulder was already worn out.

To counter the argument that they did nothing wrong, we have shown standards of the industry regarding guarding protrusions such as this and that this store and every other store that has such a protruding pallet needs to mark it with cones or similar warnings or use pallet guards.

To answer the claim that our client was at fault, we hired a “human factors” expert to explain that the main marketing tactic of stores is to attract your visual attention to displays, products and activities.  They want people looking anywhere other than the ground.  That was the situation in our case.  There was an outdoor kiosk selling fish just across from the watermelons and there were people crowding around.  It was a visual attraction.  The corner of the pallet was not.

In response to the cynical argument that the client was old and already had a bad shoulder, we have two answers.  First, his surgeon says that, but for the fall, the client would not have had the surgery.  Second, the law says a negligent party is not entitled to a healthy victim.  If you hurt someone who, because of age, prior disability or other weakness, has a worse injury than a younger, healthier person might, you pay for the whole injury caused.  That is basic fairness.

The case is not the biggest in the office, but we are busy preparing it for trial and hoping to report a positive result on a blog in the near future.