By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm:
We live in uncertain times, and that is becoming a more obvious observation by the day. From the turmoil in the financial markets to the tumult in the marketplaces of ideas, there is a widely felt lack of security, predictability, stability, and foundation: We don’t feel particularly safe. The idea that we’re just in a chaotic but temporary phase is also looking a lot like wishful thinking. As a student of juries, I’ve long noted that the collection of citizens called into the courthouse to resolve conflicts can serve as a mirror, and sometimes even as a magnifying glass, for these larger societal concerns.
Safety, and its absence, can be a strong motivator for all groups in society. Recent research, however, shows that the concern is particularly acute for those who are now moving into their eligibility for jury service. Generation Z jurors (those born between 1997 and 2012) live with a fast-paced online life and a news cycle on hyper-drive, moved through schools that are seen as increasingly dangerous, experienced the Covid pandemic during their formative years, and are now moving into or toward their work life in a time of unprecedented political and economic upheaval in this country. According to recent research (Uhis, 2025), members of Generation Z seek safety above all other measured goals. This could point toward a generational shift within the jury box: As younger Americans increasingly move into eligibility to serve on juries, they may be bringing along an emphasis on safety and protection that could influence how claims are made and defended in our civil courtrooms. In this post, I’ll take a look at the research and some of its implications.
The Research: Gen Z Says “Safety First”
As covered in the publication The Conversation, the survey was conducted by researchers from the Center for Scholars and Storytellers at UCLA, led by Dr. Yalda Uhis. As part of their Teen Snapshot series, they surveyed 1,644 adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 on what their top priories were. While results varied by several factors, including age, gender, and race, the top priority within that group — more than fame, wealth, and even happiness — was to be safe.
The Implications: Keep Safety in the Frame
Generation Z’s focus will potentially add fuel to a focus on “Safetyism,” or the tendency to focus on high, extreme, or unrealistic standards of protection, as a persuasive driver within the courtroom. The well-known Reptile and Post-Reptile approaches to trying plaintiff’s cases seek to leverage that psychological dynamic in favor of liability findings and damages awards that are motivated by jurors who are implicitly or explicitly trying to maximize safety for themselves and society.
Legally, of course, jurors are not there to decide what makes them safe. Based on the facts and the law, they are there to decide, typically, whether the defendant met a standard to act reasonably. But cases are not just decided on the facts and the law. Motivations matter as well, and that is why research like this on top social priorities will matter in assessing cases, selecting jurors, and persuasively arguing a case.
In personal injury, medical, and products cases, the safety being sought is physical. In other cases — contracts and employment cases for instance — that safety might be based on a less tangible but still no-less-real concepts of security or protection.
In these defenses, be wary of the notion of “acceptable risk,” and in grounding your defense in the legally appropriate but weak-sounding concept of whether you took “reasonable steps” in order to avoid harm. At least some jurors will instead expect you to do the maximum, and the jury instructions won’t necessarily cure them of that belief. For that reason, defendants should focus on maximizing commitment to protection and security within the zone of what you can control. For the safety-oriented juror, the message is, “within the sphere of our own responsibility, we did the best that we could do.” More broadly, defendants can also point to the good they do — through their policies and personnel — in generally promoting safety and protection.
Ultimately, safety is a powerful motivator, and one that may become more relevant with generational change. While younger jurors seem to be more attuned to the motivator, safety is not just for Generation Z. Instead, safety is a reminder that, when it comes to motivators, many jurors are likely to be starting at the base: What makes me safe?
____________________
Other Posts on Safety:
- (Safely) Combat Safety Absolutism
- Counter “Safetyism” With Realism
- Voir Dire for “Safetyist” Attitudes
____________________