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 »
Need to Talk About Race in Trial? Watch for Language Polarization June 27, 2022 0 Stealing Thunder: Know When to Preempt and When to Wait June 20, 2022 0 Defend Your Product Testing Regimen: Seven Standards June 13, 2022 0 Masks in Court: Understand the Real Lesson June 9, 2022 0 Experts: Follow the Seven
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Anecdotally, I have seen it in a few recent cases: The deposition witness isn’t asked an open-ended question and isn’t given a “Yes or No” either. Instead, they are given a range of options, like you would see in an attitude survey or a school examination. For example, an employer
Prepare for Multiple Choice Questions in Deposition Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It sometimes happens in the course of testimony: After what might have been a longer or misdirected answer, the witness will receive a stern admonition from either the questioning attorney, or worse, the judge: “Please listen carefully to the question and then simply answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’” That kind of
Witnesses: Protect Yourselves Against the “Just Answer Yes or No” Instruction Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The instructions for jurors are clear: They are to take an issue that has no effect on them, listen dispassionately to the evidence and arguments, apply the facts to the law, and make a decision. That is the model, but in reality other motivations creep in. In talking with jurors in mock
Know Your Jurors’ Anger Buttons Read More »