By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Let’s consider the life cycle of the Reptile — not the slithering, cold-blooded animal, but the strategic approach to arguing plaintiffs’ cases advocated by David Ball and Don Keenan. That perspective, trying to win by appealing to the fear response of the “reptile brain,” is thought of as a trial strategy. Defense […]
The Plaintiff Is a Reptile, so Turn Your Witness into a Mongoose Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: On the defense side of the bar, attention has been exploding over plaintiffs’ Reptile approach. If you Google “Reptile” and “Litigation,” you’ll see a profusion of articles. But so far, at least, the strategy of leveraging the perceptions of “safety” and “danger” has been the subject of attention from a subset of defense lawyers:
Expect Reptiles to Invade New Habitats Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Take the Reptile seriously, but don’t fear it. The en vogue strategic choice of the plaintiffs’ bar, the idea that trial persuasion can be leveraged by careful and targeted attention to the fear impulse of the so-called “reptilian brain,” (Keenan & Ball, 2009) is an idea that, regardless of its scientific foundation,
Don’t Fear the Reptile Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: British Prime Minister David Cameron is breathing easier after voters in Scotland rejected independence last week. For Great Britain, it will go down in history as one of the greatest modern political gambles. The vote was called at a time when fewer than one in three Scots favored independence. But in the weeks
Mind the Backlash: The Reptile’s Adventures in Scotland Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The Reptile (Ball & Keenan, 2009) is about as hot as a cold-blooded creature can get. The theory, focusing on trying plaintiffs’ cases by aiming your appeals at the primitive drive for personal safety and security, seems to have struck a chord with plaintiffs’ attorneys. With regular seminars, a growing family
Don’t Underestimate the Power of a Unifying Vision: A Return to the Reptile Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Earlier this Spring, a courthouse in Jackson Mississippi was actually invaded by snakes. That story might have made some in the plaintiff’s bar smile a bit, since in their view, Reptiles have been invading American courtrooms across the country for a few years now. Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the
Tame the Reptile in Your MedMal Defense Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Before a recent presentation, I was chatting with a Texas medical malpractice defense attorney when she shared the following: Plaintiffs’ lawyers have changed. They’re all talking about “safety” now, and that word is finding its way into every deposition: “What is the safe procedure?” or “What would’ve kept Mrs. Johnson
Respond to the Reptile Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Recently, civil defendants have been interested in a new label: “Safetyism.” The idea focuses on a pervasive and increasing attitude in the jury-eligible population that demands unrealistic standards when it comes to protecting customers, patients, and the general public. The name, I think, might be a little deceptive, because it isn’t
(Safely) Combat Safety Absolutism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: There is a perspective on juror attitudes that has been receiving some attention lately. “Safetyism” refers to an individual’s tendency to not merely prefer safety, but to demand unrealistic standards of protection — no errors, no risk of injury, no chance of a bad outcome, no ‘safe level’ of a contaminant,
Counter “Safetyism” With Realism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The Covid pandemic is now mostly in the rear-view mirror, but in now busy courthouses across the country, the juries who are returning seem a little different. Based on common experience, they appear to have more anti-corporate attitudes and to harbor greater suspicion toward large institutions. They seem to have less
Defendants – Argue Damages Differently Read More »