Samuel W. Heywood wrote: . > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with . > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It . > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge . > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be . > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant . > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the . > awards should not be a factor in their decisions.
Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, now you've won; try now to collect." Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona
