NCJ Number
191081
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 87 Dated: August 2001 Pages: 36-41
Date Published
August 2001
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article examines the recent trend among jurors to use their power to demand social changes.
Abstract
Jurors increasingly are demonstrating a willingness to force basic American institutions, such as government, business, and even private social organizations, to change the way they operate. A 16-month study by The Dallas Morning News and the Southern Methodist University Law Review identified more than 700 cases since 1990 in which jurors stated publicly that they intended their verdicts to have an impact beyond their individual cases. Jurors in Canton, Texas, handed down a $23.3 million judgment in August 1999 against pharmaceutical maker American Home Products for withholding evidence about the dangers of the diet drug Fenphen. The verdict led to a national, multibillion dollar settlement. In January 2000, a West Palm Beach, Florida, jury ordered Humana, Inc. to pay $80 million in punitive damages to the family of a 9-year-old girl with cerebral palsy after the HMO denied doctor-recommended treatments for her. Lawyers in the litigation viewed the verdict as an indicator that the public was unhappy with the status of managed care and health insurance. These and similar cases involved major public policy questions that Congress and State legislatures failed to address. Frustrated by the lack of action, activists have taken their causes to court seeking relief from what they hope will be sympathetic juries. When no one else will address the truly controversial issues and problems, juries have shown a willingness and ability to study the facts and come to conclusions. But, critics charge that a jury is the least qualified body to decide public policy, and that deciding social and public policy through jury verdicts is "a lousy way of governing."