San Diego, CA — A noticeable surge in “nuclear verdicts,” where jury awards exceed $10 million, has been linked to a growing distrust of corporations and a changing demographic within juries, particularly with the increasing presence of Generation Z jurors. This shift is not just reshaping courtroom battles but also causing a sharp rise in insurance premiums, challenging longstanding legal practices and corporate accountability.
In a notable recent legal battle, a San Diego jury awarded $11.2 million to a 74-year-old former employee of Octapharma Plasma Inc., who filed a lawsuit for age discrimination and failure to accommodate. Another case saw a San Bernardino County jury grant nearly $35 million to a former Walmart commercial truck driver, accusing the retail giant of defamation after his termination for allegedly violating company policy. These cases highlight a trend where younger jurors are playing pivotal roles in driving substantial verdicts.
Attorneys attribute these changes to a younger generation of jurors who are more empathetic towards plaintiffs and increasingly skeptical of the motives of large corporations. This generational shift is reshaping the legal landscape, causing defense counsels to reconsider their strategies and potential jury compositions.
According to a recent report by Allianz Commercial, various industries such as pharmaceuticals, food, and chemicals are encountering billion-dollar class actions, with the report’s authors warning of the unsustainable nature of such social inflation trends. Joerg Ahrens, Global Head of Key Case Management at Allianz Commercial, expressed concerns about the long-term impacts on businesses and the insurance sector.
David deRubertis, an attorney with notable experience in employment-related cases, observed that the attitudes of younger jurors have evolved significantly, especially in the context of employment disputes. Where previously younger jurors exhibited cynicism towards plaintiffs, the pandemic and a divided political climate have encouraged a more questioning approach towards corporate practices and a stronger inclination to engage in social justice through their verdicts.
The changing dynamics are not unnoticed by defense attorneys either. Robert Kum, vice chair of the Products Liability and Toxic Torts Division at Duane Morris LLP, highlighted a general mistrust among younger jurors towards companies, which they often perceive as inherently guilty of misconduct.
The broader political and social climate has also emboldened individuals to express and defend their views vigorously, shifting traditional deference to expertise and authority. This has introduced new challenges in jury selection, making it a strategic focus for litigators on both sides of the aisle.
Bibi Fell, founder of Fell Law, specializing in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death cases, pointed out that people’s strong opinions, regardless of their depth of knowledge, can lead to extraordinary verdicts as jurors react passionately to the cases presented.
Jury consultant Harry Plotkin noted that while the shift became more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend towards larger awards was already underway. The pandemic, according to Plotkin, exposed corporate behaviors that jurors found unsettling, including layoffs and cutbacks during times of profit, under the guise of operational necessity.
The evolving jury demographics and societal attitudes are creating a new dynamic in courtrooms across America, reshaping how justice is delivered and perceived in the modern age.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically written by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Requests for article removal, retraction or correction may be addressed by writing an email to [email protected].