From a practitioner’s standpoint, jury trials are fun. They add an element of excitement and drama and require a bit of acting on behalf of counsel. That’s why trials on TV are always in front of a jury.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201410204262/letters-to-the-editor/letter-in-praise-of-civil-jury-trials
Comments
0# brian francis 2014-10-20 09:47
Personal (auto) injury trials may be “fun” for the auto insurers and lawyers like Harrington but you will have a hard time finding many accident victims who had fun at trial. And as for this assertion: “plaintiff lawyers will call great numbers of experts and believe quantity is usually better than quality in order to convince the judge that their client is grievously injured” – Harrington appears to be wilfully blind (or deliberately obtuse) to the fact that it is the insurers who far too often by their “expert” medico-legal evidence from pro-insurer, biased and even unqualified hacks and quacks posing as “independent” assessors. And it is the insurers who have a habit of adducing their shoddy assessment evidence by the pound – sometimes as many as forty assessments – hoping that the volume will somehow mask its shoddy quality.
# FAIR Association 2014-10-20 12:24
On behalf of Ontario’s MVA victims, we would question the writer’s definition of ‘fun’. It isn’t fun to wait for years for treatment and benefits, to be abused by a system run for ‘fun’ or for the pleasure of a little ‘excitement’ for bored lawyers. Nor is it ‘fun’ to watch your life being trashed by your insurer’s medical opinion vendors or to watch your assets destroyed by a reluctant insurer egged on by defense lawyers who are so sure they will ‘win’ and have ‘fun’ doing it. Victims have enough ‘drama’ to last a lifetime while making a claim thanks to Ontario’s insurers’ vindictive attitude towards their own customers.
Clearly the defense does see an advantage in the use of juries and one of them is the fun part of acting in front of an audience who, unlike a seasoned judge, might be impressed with pomp and the use of poor quality medical evidence. You’ve just substantiated Mr. Shanoff’s point of view perfectly.