Two years ago we began a project to track and catalogue the pernicious impact of anchoring on jury awards in New York state.[1] The data we collected over the previous year confirms the trends we first identified in our prior article: Improper anchoring remains a massive, but solvable, problem that imposes unnecessary burdens on an already overtaxed court system and state.[2]

First, improper anchoring handsomely rewards its practitioners. Along these lines, the collective value of the pain and suffering verdicts procured through improper anchoring in our study was approximately $1.5 billion. Second, the awards obtained through improper anchoring are illusory, as the $1.5 billion in verdicts was ultimately reduced by $930 million. Third, several readily identifiable solutions to the anchoring problem are available.

Anchoring

Anchoring is a summation tactic that asks juries to return unreasonably excessive verdicts for pain and suffering. The practice is rooted in the text of CPLR 4016(b), which expressly allows plaintiffs to request "a specific dollar amount" for pain and suffering.[3] While plaintiffs are afforded this right, CPLR 5501(c) also limits a plaintiff's recovery to "reasonable compensation" as determined by a comparable case analysis. Accordingly, a plaintiff can request a dollar figure, but that demand must bear some rational relationship to prior appellate reviewed awards for similar injuries.