Some jurors don’t believe in the premise of recognizing loss of health with an amount of money equal to the value of what was taken. They are okay with economic damages that replace loss, but are suspicious of using money to recognize losses that cannot be fixed. They see it as a money grab or a way to profit from suffering. People who feel that way should not sit in judgment of a personal injury lawsuit. The following is designed to establish cause challenges on panelists who harbor that kind of bias. It starts with a brief explanation that gives them context for the questions that follow. Here is the voir dire part.
Most people don’t have a problem with economic damages (things like lost income or medical expenses), because replacing those losses fixes the problem. However, when we cross over to noneconomic damages (pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life) some folks do have a problem, because money will not take away the suffering. I need to ask you a few questions about how we deal with pain and suffering under our civil justice system.
The law provide a remedy. The remedy is to “recognize” the value of health that was taken by setting a dollar amount. It’s not about how much the injured person is going to get, it’s about how much was taken, what’s a fair value for what was lost in the way of health. The money isn’t profit, it is partial reimbursement for what was taken in the way of health. The person will never be made whole.
Having said that, some people don’t trust that remedy for pain and suffering, they don’t buy it and can’t really get behind it. They feel it is a money grab. They may be okay with smaller amounts, but not full value for the amount of health taken. Others say that system of recognizing the full value of what was taken in the way of health makes sense, they can get behind it.
Q: How many of you are in the “I’m not buying it and can’t really get behind it” group? Q: How many of you are in the “that makes sense and I can get behind it” group?
(For everyone in the first group, ask the following individual questions.)
Q: When it comes to setting the amount of money for pain and suffering, would it be fair to say you could not assure the court that you could base your decision solely on the evidence, because your feelings against that part of the case would likely affect the amount that you would be willing to support?
Q: Would it be also be fair to say that you could not turn those feelings off like a light switch?
(For anyone who was in the second group, ask the following individual questions) Q: Are you telling us that you will have no hesitation in returning a verdict for the full value of what the evidence shows was taken in the way of health?
Q: Are you sure there will be no discount based on any feeling against this remedy where you are recognizing the value of health lost?