Instant Messaging
Those who represent the victims of dangerous drugs and products should have nothing to apologize for when a large verdict is rendered. Our system of laws and trial by jury is there to deliver justice, to protect and to punish, based solely on the evidence.
January 24, 2020 at 05:55 PM
4 minute read
There's an apocryphal story of a young Hollywood writer bragging to a veteran movie producer on the quality of his script, extolling that "it's not only a great comedy, but it also has a message." To which the producer replied, "Just write me the comedy. Messages are for Western Union."
Yet, sending a message remains an inherent part of trial strategies and jury deliberations, particularly in personal injury and liability cases. In recent years it can be argued that juries are more inclined than ever to give eye-catching awards, and responsible businesses and insurers are taking note. Together with law professors and other attorneys, I was recently interviewed for an article on the possible justification for these verdicts increasing in size, if not in frequency.
Among the reasons for this trend, those interviewed cited:
- A growing distrust by consumers of corporate America;
- The concept and value of money has changed; it's "someone else's money";
- Medical and pharma defendants are more vulnerable because of jurors' personal health concerns;
- The resources of the plaintiffs' bar to discover evidence and present expert testimony can now match those of corporate defendants.
I can't disagree with any of these explanations, but as I pointed out to the writer, jurors who "get it" recognize that the only way to get the attention of a multibillion-dollar company is with billions of dollars. Particularly when you have evidence of misconduct over a long period of time, jurors view that corporate knowledge and negligence as a cover-up that increases the company's liability.
The result is a jury sending a message that punishes the defendant financially, as well as through the negative publicity that comes with the big-dollar verdict. Even if everyone in the courtroom recognizes that the jury award may be reduced through statutory limits or appeals, the corporate damage is done.
Quite simply, it's punishment.
The statutes supporting punitive or exemplary damages against a defendant arguably go back hundreds of years. The most tangible reference found in English common law is generally cited as the 1763 case of Wilkes v. Wood.
Mr. Wilkes' house was the subject of a search under a general warrant of arrest, and he brought a trespassing claim against the official who executed the search. His counsel asked for "large and exemplary damages," in order to put a stop to such actions. The Lord Chief Justice instructed the jury that:
"[d]amages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but likewise as a punishment to the guilty, to deter from any such proceeding for the future, and as a proof of the detestation of the jury to the action itself."
We're more than 250 years removed from that instruction, but the definition and rationale for the jury to send a message of "punishment to the guilty" is just as valid today.
I also believe that these mega-verdicts occur because we have mega-corporations, consolidating and growing over the years, diversifying their product lines while hiding behind other brand names in an ever more complex management structure. The public may know Johnson & Johnson as the maker of baby shampoo and Band-Aids, but only when in the jury box can it see the web of medical device and drug companies that make up the J&J empire, and those divisions generate far more revenue. Jurors may rightfully look at J&J, or any defendant, more holistically in returning their verdict.
Those of us who represent the victims of dangerous drugs and products should have nothing to apologize for when a large verdict is rendered. Our system of laws and trial by jury is there to deliver justice, to protect and to punish, based solely on the evidence. The politicians and corporate interests that seek to limit or even remove the role and responsibility of the jury to make those determinations—and yes, punish when appropriate—do all of us a disservice.
Mark Lanier is the founder of The Lanier Law Firm and is regarded as one of the top trial attorneys in the United States. He's also an author, teacher, pastor and expert storyteller. He can be reached at 800-723-3216 or [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250