A single juror brings down a malpractice award

And the plaintiff lawyer isn’t happy:

“A majority of the jurors saw this as a $5- to $7-million case, and I very much agreed with them,” Faison said. “But there was one juror who was out of step and out of touch.”

Comments

Gasman
Lawyers usually love the jury system when it works their way; that they play on the jurors emotions is no secret.
One juror cannot be blamed for the decision of the whole. A consensus was reached that (depending on the state) most or all signed onto.
Perhaps the lawyer was merely ineffective in being sufficiently pursuasive for all of the jurors. Since the legal profession has all but stated that poor outcome is the res ipsa of malpractice, then perhaps this ‘poor outcome’ (by the lawyers own admission) is res ipsa of legal malpractice.
Anonymous
I think it’s funny when people who have never tried a case pontificate on how jurors emotions are “played on”.
When did the “legal profession” even come close to stating that poor outcomes are the res ipsa of malpractice? Or is this another one of those opinions you’ve come up with that you’ve decided are fact?
Samson Isberg
I have reviewed 126 cases involving alleged medical malpractice and have testified in four different trials. Yes, the legal profession do believe that poor outcomes are the res ipsa of malpractice. Merry christmas.
Anonymous
You live in Norway. You have not reviewed a single US case, and based on your posts, have no idea what US lawyers think. The “trials” you are referring to have little in common with US ones.
Samson Isberg
Merry Christmas all the same. But don’t expect any presents – Santa’s watching this blog
Anonymous
Santa loves those who help those in need pay their bills – including their physicians’ bills. Don’t worry about me.

A single juror brings down a malpractice award

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels