Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

What Jurors Think Of American Corporations ' And What You Can Do About It

By Linda Listrom
August 01, 2006

These are challenging times for those of us who represent and defend corporations in litigation. The recent criminal convictions of Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling only confirm what we have known for quite some time ' jurors are skeptical of, and even hostile toward, corporations and corporate executives.

But in order to formulate an effective defense strategy, it is important to understand why jurors hold these attitudes. Dr. Ross Laguzza, a jury consultant with R&D Strategic Solutions, LLC, explains that jurors are rarely motivated by anger: 'In all the conversations I have had with real and surrogate jurors who are punitive, I would estimate that less than 10% were ever punishing out of anger.' Instead, he says, jurors are motivated by fear: 'Many people are afraid of an unsafe world and look to those who appear to be powerful to protect them from risk. Large corporations are perceived to have the resources necessary to accurately predict the future and stave off unwanted risks.' When jurors see a big company that has failed to protect others, or has used its immense power to harm others, fear drives their decision. As Laguzza explains: 'The important thing here is that it is not an intellectual analysis people do when they judge companies, it is an emotional one which is difficult to counter with cold facts and points of law. Understanding that safety concerns (even in non product cases) drive most jury verdicts is the key to discovering effective defense strategy.' Jurors also hold all big companies to high standards, and punish those that do not meet them. Even a company with a good public image may not be able to avoid punitive damages. 'Companies with strong positive images are often held to unrealistic standards of performance because jurors believe extraordinary performance is consistent with the company's stated values. Jurors often punish companies they think are good because they feel the company needs a reminder,' Laguzza explains.

Changing How to Advise

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.