In recent years, plaintiff attorneys have increasingly employed tactics aimed at shifting juries’ focus from the established legal standards to internal policies of defendant companies. This approach suggests that a company’s violation of its own internal policy should translate to a breach of the legal standard of care. However, legal experts argue that this method diverts attention away from the actual legal standards, which can have broad implications for corporate behavior and litigation outcomes.
The tactic often involves using a general principle, such as a commitment to safety, and framing an internal policy as an industry standard. An example is seen in Discount Tire v. Bradford, a 2023 Florida case where a plaintiff argued that Discount Tire’s internal policy on servicing tires established a legal duty. The trial court initially agreed, but this decision was later reversed by the appellate court, affirming that the industry standard of care, not internal policies, should control. This reversal underscored the principle that exceeding industry standards through internal policies should not lead to punitive consequences for companies.
Courts generally allow internal policies as evidence to inform but not determine the legal standard of care. Concerns about corporate reluctance to adopt safety measures that surpass legal requirements have led some jurisdictions to require expert testimonies for complex issues. In some cases, courts may even exclude internal policies that exceed common-law standards of reasonable care to mitigate the risk of discouraging voluntary safety policies.
As internal policies are not designed to reflect community standards or statutory requirements, they should not be treated as such in legal contexts. Legal practitioners suggest several defense strategies for dealing with this issue, including arguing that internal policies are merely internal guidance and not a replacement for the standard of care a reasonable person would expect. In situations where internal policies are admitted into evidence, defense attorneys should request jury instructions clarifying that these policies should not be considered as setting the legal minimum standard.
The underlying legal principle remains unchanged: the legal standard of care should be assessed based on established legal criteria and industry standards, not internal policies that might exceed these criteria. For detailed insights, one can refer to the full analysis provided by attorneys from Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell on Bloomberg Law.