• 27
  • October
    2011

Thumbnail image for ReganAccording to the Center for Justice and Democracy, America's media exaggerate the frequency of large jury awards in our court system. The report concluded that in today's media-saturated environment, coverage of large jury verdicts lacked depth and sophistication and that "various influences make it more likely today that the public is being exposed to brief, sensationalized and often incomplete coverage of civil jury verdicts."

The study analyzed thousands of news stories and concluded that the large personal injury verdicts reported on most often in the media were not at all representative of typical awards. Moreover, the study determined that media reporting on jury verdicts in personal injury cases usually emphasized the award's size - using headlines with words like "multi-million dollar verdict" and "punitive damages" and other attention-grabbers, while rarely taking the time to elaborate on the details of the defendant's misconduct that led to the award or whether the plaintiff chose experienced counsel with knowledge of the type of case being pursued. The study included a variety of case types including product liability, bad faith insurance practices, medical malpractice and nursing home abuse as well as consumer fraud cases. The study went beyond Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania and captured data from the whole country.

Sensational coverage of large jury awards in personal injury cases helps fuel the public impression that juries are "out of control" and that the civil justice system needs legal reform. The facts show otherwise. Most jury awards are reasonable or on the low side of what a victim's damages actually are, and often the amounts are limited by caps or review in the appellate courts. Detailed research bears this out time after time. Media stories rarely mentioned the quality of the attorneys chosen, the strength or weaknesses of the case or whether the attorneys involved have a track record of success or not.

The Center for Justice and Democracy's analysis explained that the media reports plaintiff "wins" at more than double the rate of plaintiff "losses" while, "in reality, plaintiffs prevail only 51.3 percent of tort cases [before a jury.]" Commenting on the study, West Virginia Association for Justice Vice President Scott Blass said: "Many people have misconceptions about the jury system. Obviously, a litigant's choice of counsel and the strength of their case has far more to do with the outcome in court than any 'jackpot justice' or 'tort crisis' spin the media put out in order create to create controversy and stir people up."

--Christopher Regan