Jurors are seemingly growing ever more skeptical of big corporations, with this skepticism translating into a wave of massive verdicts, from a recent $2.3 billion verdict against Monsato to a separate $1.7 billion ruling against Ford. Dubbed ‘nuclear verdicts’, these sizable awards are necessitating a significant change in legal tactics from trial attorneys on both sides of the bench.
These monolithic verdicts reflect a stark shift in public perception, with juries growing increasingly dubious of corporations’ ethics and practices. Consequently, them handing down mammoth verdicts in response to what they perceive to be egregious corporate misconduct is becoming a common occurrence.
This perceptual shift is causing a ripple effect, impacting how trial attorneys approach their cases. Aiming to either score, or protect against, these nuclear verdicts is leading to a seismic change in strategy, detailed in the article by Spencer Brewer.
The pivot in strategies adopted by trial attorneys is no less reflective of the broader societal attitudes towards corporates. It is a clarion call for big corporations to reassess their practices or face the possibly crippling consequences of a nuclear verdict.