What is the limit of verdicts? A Georgia family received $1.7 billion in Hills v. Ford Motor Co. This was the largest Georgia verdict.
It was tragic that the couple died in the accident. The automaker’s negligence seemed obvious. A Ford F-250 pickup’s roof collapsed in a rollover accident, killing an elderly couple. This highlighted a design flaw Ford knew about but failed to fix.
Even with these facts, $1.7 billion is still a significant amount of money for one family. This was not an isolated event. As a defense attorney in transportation litigation litigation, I have seen verdict size increases, which some call “runaway verdicts.”
This is due to a variety of reasons. One reason is that juries, judges, and media have changed the way they view large corporations and large amounts of money. We are used to hearing high-dollar verdicts, and don’t often pay much attention. We have become deafened. Some people believe they deserve these large payouts. This is far more than any amount that a defendant could reasonably expect to pay another party to cover lost income, health care and other costs that result from an accident.
It is easier for plaintiff lawyers to convince juries or judges to accept large verdicts due to the increasing number of cases. Runaway verdicts create a precedent and set unrealistic standards. To get the most out of this trend, the plaintiff bar has joined forces to work together in a community sharing their successful strategies and other details.
These verdicts are often driven emotionally. The ability of plaintiff attorneys to appeal to a judge or jury’s empathy can make cases less about facts and more about the way the decision-makers relate with the plaintiff’s story. Anger can become a dangerous component of the equation. The plaintiff bar tries to make an example for the defendant — a warning for all large corporations and wealthy individuals.
It’s easier than ever for plaintiffs to find an attorney who will take their case. Third-party litigation funding firms have emerged. These companies offer upfront cash to lawyers in return for a percentage of any monetary awards. These companies are basically turning litigation into gambling.
Some talented lawyers are moving to plaintiff law as the work becomes more difficult for the defense bar. They recognize that the pay is often significantly better. Price competition is increasing among those who are still on the defense side. Attorneys will accept work at rates that are lower than the current market price.
These attorneys are often hired by clients who are price conscious. However, they may not realize that their ability to provide a strong defense can be limited by this lack of financial resources. These limitations are recognized by some attorneys, and they will continue to work on a case despite the obvious losses. This creates a challenging environment for their colleagues at the defense bar.
This trend must be stopped or slowed down by a coordinated, focused effort. First, defense lawyers, who have not worked in the same way as plaintiff attorneys, must establish open lines of communication and adopt strategies that have been successful.
We need to be more assertive with our clients, including insurance companies and corporations, regarding our need for additional resources. Losses will continue to mount without the financial tools that defense attorneys need to do their jobs. This is further cementing the trends we have been seeing.
We are likely to see higher verdict amounts in future if these changes do not happen. But by working together with clients to not pursue lowest-common-denominator hourly rates, then focusing our cases around defense strategies that have worked in the past, the defense bar can attempt to turn this trend around.
The post Stopping Runaway Verdicts was first published on Attorney at Law Magazine.