NEW YORK, New York – In a recent verdict that drew attention, former President Donald Trump was hit with an $83.3 million defamation award, surpassing the amount requested by the plaintiff, writer E. Jean Carroll. This case stands out due to Trump’s actions throughout the legal process, which included denying responsibility, displaying a likelihood of repeating the behavior, and showing disdain for the judge and the judicial system. While such a combination of factors is rare, the trend of awarding high damages in more typical scenarios is on the rise, according to a recent analysis by attorney Madison Miller of Tyson & Mendes.
Miller’s analysis, titled “New Year, New Fear: Why Nuclear Verdicts Will Get Worse This Year,” suggests that eye-popping awards may become the new normal. The study highlights several sobering statistics, including a 95% increase in median nuclear verdicts from $21.5 million in 2020 to $41.1 million in 2022, far outpacing inflation. Furthermore, there were twenty verdicts exceeding $100 million in 2022, with the majority of these nuclear verdicts being decided in state courts. The top ten states where nuclear verdicts are most common are Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Alabama, New Mexico, Georgia, Wyoming, and Texas.
The analysis also reveals that products liability, auto accidents, and medical liability cases make up two-thirds of nuclear verdicts. The industries most frequently targeted in these cases include telecommunications, software, automotive, tobacco, semiconductors, health care, banks, and utilities. These findings shed light on the areas most affected by the rising trend of significant damage awards.
The rise in nuclear verdicts can be attributed to a phenomenon known as “social inflation,” in which larger damages no longer shock the public as they once did. Miller explains that jurors are now more inclined to view large awards as a means of punishing corporations rather than solely compensating plaintiffs. Additionally, plaintiffs may be emboldened to ask for higher damages due to the anchoring effect, where they rely on the initial amount requested to influence the final award.
To mitigate the risks posed by these increasingly common outlier verdicts, defendants should adopt a proactive approach. Miller suggests that companies should review their crisis response and safety policies to minimize the likelihood of lawsuits. Taking responsibility for safe operations and meeting or exceeding legal requirements can also bolster a defendant’s position. Another key strategy is to personalize the company and provide a reasonable benchmark for assessing damages. Defendants should also offer a counter-anchor to counterbalance the plaintiff’s request.
In addition to these recommendations, it is crucial to consider the mindset of jurors when arriving at a verdict. Rather than viewing it as a simple mathematical calculation, defendants should encourage a focus on translating a plaintiff’s actual losses into fair economic terms. By emphasizing the importance of calculation rather than sending a broader message, defendants can influence jurors’ motivations and arrive at a more legally appropriate outcome.
As the trend of nuclear verdicts continues to grow, it is imperative that defendants adapt their defense strategies to navigate this changing landscape. By understanding the reasons behind the rise in high damage awards and implementing proactive measures, defendants can effectively mitigate the impact of such verdicts.