Long time lurker first time poster (in this thread).
IANAL. I just completed jury service in Maryland. Personaly injury trial. 6 person jury. The plaintiff had uninsured motorist coverage, and was injured in an auto accident by an uninsured motorist. The insurance company denied his claim (citing pre-existing conditions). The insurance company and the uninsured motorist were codefendants. Very common kind of civil trial, obviously, but I figured I'd share some impressions of the experience from the jurist P.O.V.
If we found the motorist negligent, we were asked to fill in the blank for 1. past medical expenses, 2. future medical expenses, and 3. non-economic damages. Again, very common.
This was a lousy case for the defense. There was no chance any jury would fail to find the uninsured motorist negligent, so it was always going to come down to how much money the jury ordered the insurance Co to pay to the plaintiff. The insurance company had no hope of escaping having to pay most/all of the future expenses. When added with their attourney fees, taking this to court, even with a low payout (which they didn't get), would have been a loser.
We found the motorist negligent, awarded full past and full future medical expenses, and also awarded enough pain & suffering to cover what we assumed was the plaintiff's attourney's cut (1/3). Hey, the judge said we were supposed to use common sense, right? Plus we threw in an extra $1000 because we suspected the plaintiff's atty accidentally left out one doctor's bill. Because we can.
The plaintiff was in some chronic pain, and had been gutting it out for a few years before filing suit when his injuries (knee, shoulder) continued to bother him, but was able to work. Had to change how he worked a bit - far less lifting and carrying - but he was getting older and ran the company so he should have been leaving that to the strong backs anyway! But no, we never assigned blame to him, not even though in my opinion he should have more promptly taken care of his injuries rather than just plugging along hoping they would heal. Some quality of life issues, but nothing horrific. It really is tough to compute a pain & suffering number, isn't it?
The plaintiff was a real standup guy. Self-made, came to the country as a teenager, learned the language, got educated at night, started his own business, etc. How a jury feels about a witness is everything.
Some of us hung around after being released in order to be available in case any of the attourneys had questions, and in the hope of asking them some questions. We hung around because we all found the process very interesting and rewarding, and had come to feel a sense of ownership over it.
Q: (posed to plaintiff's atty) Why did insurance company not settle? This was a dog of a case.
A: They are currently in the mode of denying all claims and going to court. I feel bad for (insurance Co atty first name) because he is forced to defend a lot of these cases at the moment. Not much he can do other than throw up stuff and hope it sticks.
Q: (posed by plaintiff atty's assistant to me) What took you so long to decide the verdict?
A: We took a while to come to agreement on the numbers. Had two people who were uncomfortable awarding full future expenses for the shoulder injury.
[We got the case at 3:30pm, judge sent us home at 5:30, we returned at 9:30am and had a verdict by 10:30]
Q: (posed by insurace Co's atty) What was it that caused you to award all the costs?
A: The plaintiff's orthopedist's testimony was more believable than the insurance company's ortho.
The insurance company doctor had performed hundreds of similar exams for the insurance industry over the past 5 years, and none of the jurors except the one idiot gave his testimony a moment's consideration, even though the judge instructed us that he was to be considered an expert witness. It is obvious to sentient people how a guy like that is incentivized, so his testimony gets taken with a very sizeable grain of salt.
The jury: Personalities and biases sure come to the fore during deliberation. We had the following archetypes:
1. "Document Guy" - makes his living in government contracts - had to read through all the evidence documents before he finally came around on the shoulder injury. Good guy, was just putting his oar in where it best fit - but it got tedious humoring his desire to ponder and poke.
2. "Nervous lady" - can't we all just get along? There is an ethnicity component here too - but I don't want to offend. Real weak personality type. "Can we award only half the future medical?" NO - if someone comes into your house and (even accidentally) ruins your painting, you don't split the costs, that person is totally responsible. Grow a spine and call a spade a spade.
3. "I want to go home" - I just don't want to be here, any number is fine with me. In this case this was also the Nervous Lady, so I just told her "your numbers are low, here are my reasons, and I can stay here all day and come back tomorrow and the day after if need be". So she was no problem in the end, just frustrating to have to listen to, and disheartening to see someone who just doesn't really care about her duty or the people she has been asked to sit in judgement over. I think she was afraid she'd offend the defendant or something.
4. "Story teller" - Sure spent a lot of time telling us about his own bodily injuries. Also dwelt FOREVER on "why didn't they spend more time on WHY this kid was driving without insurance". Yes, we get it, he's a bad guy, but it has NOTHING to do with what we need to do so give it a rest. Good guy overall, but a bit tedious and unfocused.
Misc:
- it was really helpful that we all got the chance to discuss it, work towards a verdict, then go home and sleep on it. When we returned people had better perspective and didn't feel rushed. This resulted in the award increasing by probably about 20%, by the way. Me and Story Guy weren't leaving until we felt the plaintiff wouldn't be out of pocket on this.
- I was impressed by the way all the attourneys treated each other and the judge.
- The quality of the attourneys' delivery varied. The insurance Co's atty was by far the smoothest, but he had no case. The plaintiff's atty stumbled over his words some, but was fine. The uninsured motorist's atty seemed the weakest - but that is to be expected if he is making his living defending poor, young defendants. Probably not at the top of the lawyer food chain.
- I bet you guys get some awful juries. Ours was pretty good, overall. Major metropolitan area full of white collar folks. One bad juror, the rest very conscientious and willing to be civil, to compromise within reason, and looking for what we thought was justice. 4 strong personality types (3 male, 1 female) and two weaker types (both female). At least the bad juror could be swayed by the rest of the group. But man, some of the people in the jury pool were hopeless. Couldn't make it in on time, itching to get excused, dumb, surly, pathetic, or even unbathed. The jury was actually seated, with one alternate, and excused for lunch. When we returned juror #2 immediately approached the judge with some newfound problem and was excused. So before the trial even began we had no alternate. She couldn't have figured out she had a problem during voir dire??
- The bad juror gave me a cold, which I am now fighting.
- The bad juror would start asking the rest of us questions about the trial when we recessed and got on the elevator. We had to repeatedly tell her "no discussion".
- After being sent home, and returning the next morning to finish deliberation, "Story Teller" begins a sentence with "I took the liberty to look up..." at which point we told him to just stop. Not allowed. He just looked up vehicle weight, no big deal, but it is better to keep it clean.
- The average juror took 8 pages of notes over the 2-day trial. Small notepads. I was about average, just summarizing my thoughts on each witness's testimony and cross exam testimony, tried to jot down what I felt were the key facts. Was not transcribing, obviously.
- Story Guy took NONE. Didn't talk with the rest of us during recesses. Yet was the first guy to speak when deliberations began: "I just want to say...". Probably the most voluble juror during deliberations.
- Story Guy and I were in agreement on awarding the most. Two other good jurors were a little less. Nervous Lady was way less. Kept wanting to tell us about her own shoulder problems, and how her doctor told her we all have "50 year shoulders" and they can go at any time. Utter lack of logic - this guy's problems started the morning after the accident - this wasn't a coincidence. Documents Guy was for awarding less as well until he agreed on full future medical for the shoulder, at which point he came up to my number.
- I was the perfect juror.
- There are some real whack jobs around here. One juror worked until 3am after the 1st trial day to get her work done. Hell, I thought "Jury Duty" meant that you got to chill on your real life a bit. And she is a Government Employee - she can miss a day. Actually, I respect that, but I am glad I operate differently. Told folks weeks ago I had duty, might be out of the office a few days, handed out work assignments in case this happened, and checked in a few times each day. Sufficient. The world didn't end. By the way, this juror wore a pedometer and during breaks was walking laps around the lobby to get up to 10,000 steps. Kind of kooky/obsessive.
- Judge seemed cool. Older, relaxed, very friendly and took time to explain the system, give perspective, etc. Treated the attys well, didn't get bent out of shape when a witness misunderstood his sustainment of an objection and kept answering the question for another phrase or two. Rolled with the bumps. Gave a very impartial vibe. Disrespected nobody.
- The judge's assistant seemed like a real toady. Don't know why I say that. I imagine he fetches.
- It is really wierd keeping court hours, where nothing starts until 0900. I am usually at work at 0600, and wind up my day at 1600, plus or minus. Every morning I got up and just drank coffee and surfed the web as long as I could stand it. Still got to court an hour early and sat around reading a book. Ok, I'm wierd, not the courthouse.
- Overall, a great experience and I'd gladly do it again. You guys definitely work in a very interesting profession, and many of the slanders against lawyers are undeserved. The work is important. I'm an engineer and therefore a snob about my profession, but respect is due and given.
- You don't want an engineer on the jury if your case is weak. We will (and I did) summarize the pertinent points in very clear short language, talk the logic through the points, and show the inescapable correct solution. Because it really isn't that hard to do. And then we will seethe when "Nervous Lady" just goes right back to talking about her 50-year shoulder and her own fender bender experience. WHAT ABOUT THE LOGIC? HOW DID YOU ESCAPE THE REMORSELESS WEB OF LOGIC I JUST WOVE??
- Looking at the civil docket, the majority of the cases were for divorce or insurance reasons, it appeared. Quite a grind on a judge, I'd imagine.
- I was not a fan prior to the trial of insurance companies that dabble in bad faith in a systematic way. (I do lean right, by the way). I was quite happy to be able to rectify this instance. I also told me fellow jurors I wouldn't mind greatly increasing the pain & suffering number as punishment. None of them caught my crusading zeal, and I try to be wary of that unfortunate aspect of my personality in general, so I didn't push the point once I had made it.
