By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: As civil jury trials continue to become more scarce, the need to reasonably assess what result a jury would return in trial becomes even more important. Even when the trial does not happen — especially when it does not happen – clients, counsel, and insurers need a rational way to ground […]
Stop Speculating on Your Damages Exposure 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 »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: “Social inflation” is a phrase that crops up these days when people are talking about civil damage awards. As an explanation for a wave in so-called “nuclear verdicts,” social inflation refers to the phenomena of typical damage award levels rising over time as the population gets more comfortable with those big
Account for ‘Social Inflation’ in Damages Awards Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Everyone supports safety. The popular “Reptile” approach to trying plaintiffs’ cases is built on the strength of safety as a core value. It is a common sense attitude to prefers greater security over greater risk. But there is also an extreme version of that attitude – a version that tolerates zero
Voir Dire for “Safetyist” Attitudes Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The news cycle has been drowning in it. For the first time in history, a former U.S. President faces criminal charges. Donald Trump was arraigned this past Tuesday on April 4th, after being indicted on 34 charges involving the falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime, all surrounding payments
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you’re analytically-minded, and have at least a little bit of training in logic and argument, then you might be tempted to think it is enough to name a logical fallacy or cognitive bias. After all, what rational audience would want to follow flawed reasoning? But just calling it out
‘De-Normalize’ Hindsight Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: New York Plaintiff’s attorney Ben Rubinowitz has written and presented over the years on an approach toward cross-examination using what he calls “Voice of Reason” questions. He was recently a guest on a podcast called “Unscripted Direct” (“Episode 48 – Bad Facts”) where he demonstrated the approach, which he describes as having
When You’re Crossed, Handle the “Voice of Reason” Questions Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When jurors are awarding damages in a civil case, the law looks at what they’re doing in a binary way: They are either compensating the plaintiff for what they have lost, or they are awarding additional amounts to set an example. In short, anything outside of “making the plaintiff whole”
Ask What Jurors Are Trying to Do with Damages Read More »