NCJ Number
133222
Journal
Court Manager Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1991) Pages: 19-22
Date Published
1991
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Interviews were conducted with 269 jurors from 36 different cases involving business and corporations to determine if jurors are overly sympathetic toward plaintiffs or incompetent in deciding on liability and awards.
Abstract
Every civil case that had a business or corporate party was identified during a 1-year period at a State trial court of general jurisdiction. Jurors in these cases were asked to participate in a study about their jury experience. About 7 of every 12 jurors from each case agreed to participate. Contrary to critics' view of civil juries, findings revealed that jurors were generally skeptical of claims filed by plaintiffs. This skepticism led them to scrutinize the parties and to assess the evidence carefully in reaching verdict and award decisions. Jurors rated their jury experience very positively and had a high level of confidence in the jury system. Many jurors specifically indicated how impressed they were with the quality of deliberations and the ability of 12 people to arrive at a fair conclusion. In making awards, jurors often made very precise calculations of medical expenses, repair bills, and other costs to ensure that plaintiffs got no more than they seemed to deserve. With few exceptions, jurors did not support the idea that spouses should receive awards for loss of consortium. Jurors were generally cognizant of their duty to the court and their responsibilities to fellow taxpayers and insurance purchasers. A common concern of jurors was the time spent waiting during jury selection and trial processes. In addition, they commented that attorneys and judges did not provide enough guidance on how to arrive at monetary awards.