Product Defect Verdicts Bigger in 2009
Posted by John Sedgewick - 23/01/10 at 05:01 pmThe Chicago Sun Times and Bloomberg News have reported that the top 5 product liability verdicts returned in 2009 were more than 50% greater than the top 5 in 2008. Leading the way in size were verdicts against cigarette makers and drug companies.
The tension in product liability trials is often around the public perception of who is costing the public more, careless manufacturers or people who bring injury claims. This is neither appropriate nor fair to either side, as individual cases are supposed to be judged on the evidence introduced in the courtroom, not on public opinion or the political interests of the particular jurors sitting on the case.
A person injured by a clearly defective product should not be punished twice, once in the form of his or her injury and again in the courtroom. By the same token, companies that make safe products should not be punished by jurors who happen to be angry at someone else.
Before 2009, most lawyers would probably have said that, more often than not, it was harder for an injured person to get a fair trial than a big company. Perhaps the explanation for the 2009 numbers is that jurors are presently more willing to listen to the evidence with an open mind.
In the past, jurors assumed that government standards and government oversight were sufficient to control corporate misbehavior. The inaccuracy of that assumption has been revealed by Bernie Madoff and the big banks and brokerages “too big to fail”, all of whom have been subject to the closest scrutiny government offers. The fact that Madoff, Enron and others were able to cheat the public for so long, and that big bankers were able to take billions of dollars out of their companies while leaving stockholders with nothing shows how weak and ineffective government regulators are.
In the end, only a strong tort system and a strong jury system can regulate big business and protect “the little guy” from the power of big money interests.
