The concept of ‘safetyism’ – the belief that every individual should be entirely free from potential harm or discomfort – has been gaining traction in our society. This ideology, explored in depth in the 2018 publication, “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure,” written by authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, is now beginning to permeate our legal system, appearing among jurors and occasionally, even judges.
Defence attorneys facing the consequences of this shift may need to implement various litigation strategies from the outset. These tactics potentially offset the impact of safetyism, reducing the likelihood of substantial damage awards. Ann Marie Duffy from Hollingsworth discusses specific strategies for combatting this trend in her recent article;
3 Litigation Strategies To Combat ‘Safetyism’
One of the grounding principles of these tactics is presumably to refocus the court’s perspective, realigning it from an over-emphasis on individual safety to a more proportional analysis of risk and responsibility. Legally, the idea is to ensure the outcome of any litigation does not fall excessively towards one end of the risk-averseness scale, thereby compromising fairness and justice.
Duffy’s litigation strategies could represent a crucial step in mitigating the ramifications of the safetyism wave, ensuring our legal system maintains balance, and that the potential for disproportionately large damage awards is kept in check.