Charity and the American Jury: Exploring the Relationship Between Plaintiffs Need-Based Arguments and Juror Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Suits

Abstract

Critics of the American jury system argue that jurors have “turned the legal system into a charity program” where jurors' verdicts are based more on plaintiff “neediness” than on the factual merits of the case. This study tests this and associated claims by varying the plaintiff attorney's need-based arguments in a simulated medical malpractice case. While findings indicated that the mock jurors were aware of the plaintiffs need, the results did not support claims that jurors are swayed by such arguments. Other findings of interest include the following: women allocated greater fault to the physician than did men; the amount of fault awarded to the physician was associated with participants' view of the physician's ability to pay; and, participants exposed to the high-need condition viewed the plaintiff as less responsible for her health care than those exposed to other conditions.