Higher jury verdicts reflect a better understanding of general damages

P. Chistopher Ardalan's guest column about the defense industry's misunderstanding of why jury verdicts have been increasing remarkably ("'New-Clear' verdicts - don't blame the jurors," Daily Journal, Oct. 27), correctly points out that these high verdicts are actually well-reasoned decisions of jurors making strong statements that dangerous conduct which hurts and maims people demands full compensation. I submit that plaintiff lawyers have also had to improve their explanation of general damages to justify large damage requests.

In 2011 our Supreme Court decided Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions, Inc. 52 Cal. 4th 541, which at first appeared to slash the value of personal injury claims by removing from a trial lawyer's arsenal the "billed" medical charges without reductions for government mandated or contractual write-offs, by ruling that such charges never owed by the plaintiff are not recoverable tort damages. Many trial lawyers did not see an end to fair and just jury verdicts. Instead, we realized that trial lawyers needed to stop relying on economic damages as an anchor for general damages to get justice for clients, and instead had to start doing a better job of conveying the harms and losses suffered by personal injury victims or the families who lost a loved one. By understanding the impact of the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff, trial lawyers can help jurors understand what it will take to fully compensate a plaintiff needlessly injured by the defendant's decision to betray the trust society places in one another to follow the rules of a safe society and award appropriate general damages.

Nothing is likely to change if the defense response is to simply file motions to preclude plaintiff lawyers from requesting larger verdicts or not allowing us to point out the recklessness of a defendant's choices, while ignoring the jury's ability to determine damages once they understand what the plaintiff has lost. As Mr. Ardalan notes, big verdicts usually reflect the defense team's misjudgment about the value of the claim. Books like Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice for All by Robert F. Tyson, which fail to advise defendants to settle cases with large general damages potential, will only foster an ever-increasing trend of jury awards conveying that message.

-- Bruce M. Brusavich

Partner at Abir, Cohen, Treyzon & Salo LLP, and past president of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles and Consumer Attorneys of California