In a recent Connecticut jury trial, a plaintiff was awarded over $500,000 in monetary damages in a case based on an auto accident. According to news reports, the defendant, a New York Supreme Court judge, admitted he caused the accident. However, he testified that the accident was minor and did not require either an ambulance or a tow truck.
How, then, could such a judgment be justified? The basis of the plaintiff's claim for damages was that the accident triggered memories of severe child abuse. The jury apparently believed that the plaintiff suffered these memories, and that the defendant should be held accountable for these memories because he caused the auto accident.
It is, of course, impossible to uncover the exact basis for the jury's decision. However, certain factors may have played a role in the jury's decision.
Severe child abuse, of course, would warrant substantial damages. When the actual culprit cannot be held accountable, jurors may be inclined to hold someone else accountable, because the victim clearly is deserving of compensation. Moreover, in a case such as this, much of the testimony would have to center on the nature of the memories and, thus, the severe abuse suffered by the plaintiff. Evidence of severe child abuse would be expected to evoke extreme sympathy and, thus, might form the basis for an emotional conclusion by a jury not based on reason.
Moreover, a defendant's wealth also can play a role in large and seemingly unwarranted awards of monetary damages. In this case, is it possible that the defendant's status as a New York Supreme Court judge also played a role? (The judge also had been nominated to become a federal judge). While it is not clear whether the jury was informed of this fact in court, in many cases jurors become aware of this type of information either in court or from outside sources. Such status, if known to a jury, might be equated with wealth and, thus, the presumed ability of the defendant to pay a substantial judgment without significantly impairing his wealth. In other words, in the jury's mind such a decision may be fair to both parties.
Perhaps, in one sense, though, the defendant in this case should be thankful. The plaintiff had asked for over $6 million in damages. However, before the defendant can celebrate a $500,000 judgment against him, it must be noted that the plaintiff plans to appeal the case. The plaintiff's attorneys announced that they were very disappointed by the "low" damage award.
The $523,175 in damages was divided among the following individual components in the formula:
- $25,000 for medical bills
- $198,175 for lost wages (the plaintiff alleged she could not work due to the auto accident)
- $300,000 for pain and suffering
This result is consistent with the results in many other cases, in that the award for pain and suffering is the largest component in the formula.
Unfortunately, the pain and suffering component also is a very subjective determination made by the jury designed to compensate the plaintiff for the emotional trauma suffered. While the award for pain and suffering can be expected to be a function of the amount of past medical bills and lost wages, in reality there is no formula that calls for this result. In fact, there is no mathematical formula used to compute the award for pain and suffering. It is within the complete discretion of the jury, although some states limit this component in certain cases, such as medical malpractice actions.
Note that the plaintiff had sought $6 million in damages. Presumably, most of this $6 million that the plaintiff had sought would be attributable to compensation for pain and suffering, although some amount could be attributable to future medical bills and lost wages.
The facts in this case are unique, but the results, unfortunately, are shared with many other cases. In reality, many factors, including the personal make-up and emotional reactions of individual jurors, will influence a jury's decision. The result may be a decision by the jury that defies reason.
In this case, clearly the defendant was not responsible for the severe abuse suffered by the plaintiff when she was a child. Further, the defendant established that, as could be expected, the plaintiff had suffered severe emotional problems prior to the auto accident. Moreover, there was no way, of course, that the defendant could have foreseen that an automobile accident with that plaintiff would trigger her memories of severe child abuse.
Few people, thinking objectively, would conclude that defendants should be held accountable for harm that is primarily the result of someone else's conduct, or harm that they could not foresee would result from their conduct. Don't count on this result in an actual jury trial, even when the law prescribes it.
When the small business owner or the employees drive the business's vehicles, the owner should recall the results in this case. In addition, it also is important to remember that these results are not limited to automobile accident cases.
Finally, note, too, that this case illustrates a separate risk factor. It is highly likely that the plaintiff hired her attorney on a contingent fee basis, and thus it cost her nothing out-of-pocket, while the defendant hired his attorney on an hourly basis. With a full trial and an appeal, the defendant will have paid out a very significant sum of money to his attorney to cover these fees. Even if the defendant prevailed on appeal, these fees would not be reimbursed.