Over the years, mock jurors and courtroom jurors have been asked what they generally think of contemporary damage awards by juries. Sometimes they are given forced-choice options, which typically include “too high,” “too low” or “about right.” Given some nuclear verdicts in the past, along with renowned cases ending up with a high damage award for say a really hot cup of coffee, people have become fed up with the system and tort reform movements have propagated. Until recently, when a group of people were asked the question above regarding jury damage awards, most people would indicate that they are too high. Some would say they are about right, and less common was someone or a very small group of people who would say the awards have been too low. In the last few years, the distribution of responses to this question has shifted. Fewer and fewer jurors think jury awards today are too high, and more and more think they are about right or even too low. What has led to this shift? And does this help plaintiffs more or company defendants?

It is too early to decipher with clarity what has led to such a fundamental shift in attitudes about jury awards. Are people more mistrusting of corporations and therefore when liability is established a high award might seem commensurate with the corporate wrongdoing? Very possibly. Also, people are worried about the economy as well as the cost of living, and this mindset can serve to spike damages. Our online nationwide survey from July reaching 206 jury-eligible people from 15 counties across the country showed some interesting “social inflation” results. And keep in mind the counties in the survey were selected because they represent a range of geographically, demographically and politically diverse subsets of the population (this annual survey has been conducted since 2017). In the survey, 53% agreed with the following statement: “Given the high cost of living nowadays if I was awarding damages to a plaintiff I would err on the side of a higher monetary amount.” This has been pretty consistent over the past few years. Also, 68% agreed that if they were awarding money to a plaintiff, they would take into consideration that the cost of living has increased. Also, 71% of respondents felt that they would expect damage awards to increase these days due to everything costing a lot more. This percentage is trending upwards as it increased from 68% in 2024 and 63% in 2023. And finally, almost half (53%) agree with the statement, “Because of inflation, plaintiffs who win lawsuits should get a lot more than they normally would.”

Are either plaintiff or defense lawyers licking their chops at these results? At first glance, it might seem that it would benefit plaintiffs since the populace seems to be becoming inured with high damage awards and hence more willing to award greater damages. However, during jury selection, when more people indicate jury awards are about right or too low, it gives defense lawyers a good pathway towards identifying their worst jurors and in the process it helps them dismiss a juror for cause (too much bias so cannot be fair) or perhaps more likely use a peremptory strike. When most people used to think jury awards were too high, company defendants could focus on the few who felt otherwise. Now, since many more feel otherwise and fewer think awards are too high, with a finite number of peremptory strikes, defense lawyers representing companies are at a disadvantage. The good news for company lawyers is they will be more likely to ascertain those with a proclivity to render high damage awards, but the bad news is that if there are too many of these “high damage” jurors in the pool, they might end up with a few of them on their jury. So the overall advantage I believe goes to plaintiff lawyers on this fundamental shift in attitudes about damage awards.