Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

The cry for tort reform doesn’t necessarily arise from large headline grabbing verdicts but rather by a number of many questionable small suits that never should have been brought in the first place. “It has been commonplace that the United States is noted to be the most litigious nation on earth indeed, in human history, and that excessive resort to lawsuits marks America’s moral decline and portends painful potential and economic consequences”. A phalanx of mournful and indignant commentators concur that America is in the throes of a litigation crisis requiring urgent attention from policymakers”. (Mark Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Maryland MD.L. REV 3, 1986). In reality, we find that there is only a small subset of cases with high stakes and increasingly large verdicts that have inflated the public perception. Researchers have noted the very fact that a dispute has reached the court and has not been settled without litigation is very unusual. Viewed against the baseline of potential lawsuits, litigation is not as infrequent as one would assume, since for every dispute in the court records, there are nine others that never reach the filing stage. Most intelligent or experienced personal injury or vehicle accident lawyers will screen out cases that are meritless. Research indicates that litigants spend significantly more money on legal fees for air accident cases, asbestos cases and products liability cases. Of course, because mostly all of these cases involve catastrophic injury or death of a plaintiff and the stakes are much higher. In most cases, experts are biased and favor the parties who employ them and there testimony is somewhat predictable. Adam Liptak, in an article published in The New York Times on August 11, 2008, noted that many times experts cancel each other out and many foreign lawyers and law systems question the American practice allowing parties to present testimony from experts they have chosen and paid. He further notes that the European judge who visits the United States experiences “something bordering on disbelief when he discovers that we extend the sphere of partisan control to the selection and preparation of experts according to John Langbein”, a law professor at Yale.

The courts of the United States have long maintained a jury system in civil cases, a practice rejected by most of the common law world. Juries find it hard to evaluate expert testimony on complex scientific matters many lawyers say, and they tend to make decisions based on the experts demeanor, credentials and their ability to present medical information without condescension. Based upon our experience trying cases for almost 30 years, we have found that the most successful attorneys are those who appear folksy, down-to-earth and are able to keep the facts simple and reduce it to human terms and understanding that the average jury will have no problem dissecting. When I was first out of law school, I tried what I considered to be the worst case ever. My expert witness appeared in a courtroom in a cheap embossed kelly green suit made of questionable “material” and when he testified, I was about to climb under counsel’s table. My embarrassment and fear were not unnoticed. I was a junior associate following marching orders of my older senior partner who did not want to spend “any money” on what he considered to be a questionable case. The defense presented a fairly sophisticated and highly complex expert witnesses, explaining the velocity of a fall caused by a defect on a sidewalk. The defense expert, of course, traveled first class, required first class accommodations and was a highly paid hired gun with Ivy League credentials. My expert at the time told me prior to the trial that we could meet over a bowl of clam chowder and he would discuss the case with me.

Since the injuries in the case did not merit an extravagant expenditure and since I was a fairly novice Pennsylvania personal injury attorney out of law school, less than one year, I learned a valuable lesson. Believe it or not, we reached a substantial verdict in this case and when the jury was questioned afterwards, they felt that they were able to understand the expert my senior partner selected and that the expert selected by defendant was too technical, way above their heads and spoke in terms that they did not understand. A very important lesson early on. Keep it honest and as simple as possible. All juries approach cases with their own sense of integrity and just plain old common street sense.

Sometimes, when I hear the hired guns for an automobile manufacturer or insurance companies testify, my gut gets sickened and I feel like I need a shower after the litigation. I am astounded with regard to how many experts will sell out for the almighty dollar. Expert testimony has become a cottage industry. My findings have revealed that it is not necessarily the Ivy League standings of an expert that may dictate success in a trial, but, in fact, basic common sense in what a jury brings with them to the courtroom. In effect, the jury must be able to clearly comprehend the facts of the case and have them explained to them in the simplest matter possible with verifiable data.

If you or a loved one has suffered a catastrophic injury resulting from the usage of a defective product, or have been injured in a car accident or are the victim of medical malpractice, you owe it to yourself to get an honest open and (no charge) opinion from the experienced Pennsylvania product liability attorneys at the law firm of Reiff and Bily.