(Actually, like Ron, I suspect the cost of chair lawsuits will fit seamlessly into the cost of general business liabiiity insurance.)

Jim, I don’t think the amount of liability coverage should be increased with an eye towards the risks of broken chairs. There are more likely risks out there. Again, I’m not faulting your premise. I just don’t think that particular concern is a big one.

Lawyers also bring their lift experiences to the case, and can be blinded to the fact that not everyone else (sometimes even most people) do not agree with them. Additionally, many lawyers believe that their personal eloquence and charisma will carry the jury. And, there are the lawyers who shoot from the lip with their client and then have to find an excuse on why the jury didn’t agree.

The justice system is a system run by people, with all the strengths and faults any system run by people will have. The lesson from this case is if you invite the public into your business, don’t cut corners by buying furniture that isn’t solidly built — despite what the high-priced interior decorator might have said.

There are a lot of birth injury cases with defense verdicts, the vast majority actually. It is just the big verdicts that you here about.

A part of this animosity towards juries is a substitute for another idea embedded in our culture: if you don’t agree with me, you are stupid.

The example I gave above is classic. Lawyer’s client gets a jury trial only because he asks for one. Why? He thought he would get a better outcome on average with a jury. Then when the jury disagrees, they are idiots who couldn’t be trusted to process the information.

Jurors do bring their life experiences with them. This often clouds sound judgment and reason. But there is no path around this problem. Judges also suffer from this affliction. It is the disease of being human.

And, yes–it is sometimes difficult for laypeople to evaluate complex issues when each side’s expert(s) has their own spin to it. But again, they usually get it right–in my experience. There are a handful or more of venues that have more dimwitted jurors than others, that’s for sure.

And with the above example of a brain-damaged infant–yeah, too often perhaps sympathy trumps logic (if that was actually the case). If we want full and fair compensation for innocent victims it be codified and paid from the general fund–not by the nearest deep-pocketed defendant.

A malpractice defense lawyer got hit with a big verdict here in Maryland recently. Here is what he said:

“The jury’s verdict is significant because it makes the case for much needed reform of Maryland medical malpractice law. First, in a brain-damaged baby case, the issues are of such complexity that it cannot be
expected that juries with limited education can possibly understand the issues, especially when their knowledge of the medicine comes from highly paid biased experts….”

Many of you are nodding your heads. But there is one little fact that the lawyer did not mention: the plaintiff did not pray a jury trial. The defendant – the same lawyer with this quote – did.

Juries don’t always get it right. Do you guys think you would always agree with a judge’s decision? And how many of you who wave the constitution around have read the 7th Amendment and understand the basis for it?

And, I’ve said it here before, sorting through the issues and voting for the right candidate is far more complex than being a juror where everything is spoon fed to you and there are procedural rules that give both sides a chance.

Jim, I don’t agree with the verdict but let’s not create issues that don’t exist. You have a general liability policy that would certainly cover this. You don’t need defective chair coverage.

But, like Ron M., I might award the plaintiff something. What do juries usually do if the chair collapses at a chain store, rather than at a we-all-hate-them lawyer’s office? I suspect jury behavior is influenced by their expectations whether the defendant and the plaintiff have insurance.

In a perfect society, there might be a workmen’s comp schedule of damages for accidents that are random, not the result of real negligence. Or, in some Western and Northern European societies, national health insurance would cover the injury without need to sue anybody.