0liverBoliverButt t1_isp0gvt wrote on October 17, 2022 at 5:05 PM

Reply to comment by 0liverBoliverButt in guide to voting on referendums by UlisesLima9

Real example: I just had a trial last month for an accident where the guy had about 8k in medical bills plus about a month missed from work. Sued for 30,000; it got bumped, and we just finally had the trial.

The accident happened in 2018.

We won (jury verdict was more than $15,000) which is fine. But we could have done that 3 years ago when if they hadn’t bumped us up to Circuit.

Batmark13 t1_ispcq5o wrote on October 17, 2022 at 6:27 PM

Thank you for the specifics. Could you play devil's advocate for a moment and tell us why anyone would vote against Question 3?

0liverBoliverButt t1_isppx7l wrote on October 17, 2022 at 7:53 PM

It’s difficult to think of one, since you get to pick your Court as a Plaintiff. (If you had a $3,000 claim and wanted a jury trial, knock yourself out!) But, if you were being sued and thought that you stood a better chance with a jury as opposed to a judge, then this would raise the bar for getting in front of a jury.

Keep in mind that this is just for Civil (not criminal) cases.

As long as we’re talking about something you have insurance for, (car insurance, homeowners, renters, business) I believe the minimum liability coverage on the state is 30k, so this would still keep you protected under your policy.

CasualCantaloupe t1_isr4id5 wrote on October 18, 2022 at 2:08 AM

I'll play:

The right to a jury is one of our most cherished societal rights and already has many limitations on it.
District courts are already backed up; there won't be a significant decrease in time between initiation and verdict for many of the borderline cases. The overwhelming majority of cases settle regardless.
Plaintiff can already proceed with a 10-104 in cases under $30k and won't need to call an expert and incur the corresponding expenses.

Editing to add some more: this applies to more than motor torts. This would raise the threshold for all civil cases: this means that virtually no non-commercial landlord-tenant dispute can have a jury trial (few enough as it is at 15k); many non-commercial debt collection cannot have a jury trial; fewer contract disputes can have a jury trial.

It's great to have this conversation as a state but you have to think about more than what was presented above.

0liverBoliverButt t1_isr9dqn wrote on October 18, 2022 at 2:48 AM

You are correct on all fronts- with some caveats.

In my experience, juries don’t respond as well to dropping a stack of medical records in front of them, and while 10-104 is still available, the impression is seriously muted as opposed to a judge, used to seeing and reviewing meds. You don’t need an expert but having one there makes a better impression.

District Courts, while seriously backed up after the pandemic, are still way faster than Circuit. And while the vast majority of cases settle, sometimes it takes a looming trial date to get the parties to talk.

The right to a jury is important, but so is the right to a remedy for harms done. And when insurance companies plead jury trials in bad faith as a delaying tactic, nobody’s rights are served.

CasualCantaloupe t1_isrl2e4 wrote on October 18, 2022 at 4:32 AM

Is it bad faith to exercise a right so important that it makes it into the Constitution three times? Yes, the insurance company calls the shots on litigation strategy but when the actual trial starts, the defendant is the one facing a jury of their peers, not State Farm.

Justice delayed is justice denied, sure, but it's a question of some months we're talking about here between district and circuit. Where are we to draw the line to say it is proper to abrogate the defendant's rights in the interest of swift resolution for the plaintiff?

I'm genuinely unsure about how I'll vote on this initiative. I appreciate your sharing from you perspective but there are other things to consider for people who do not have a business interest (or have an opposing business interest) in the matter.