Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Rickey Anderson and Lynnette Anderson v. Gregory J. Babbe. Nebraska "Golden Rule" Jury Argument
It is improper to make a "golden rule argument" asking jurors to "to place themselves in the plaintiff's shoes and award the amount they would 'charge' to undergo equivalent disability, pain and suffering." However, it is not reversible error unless the jurors are prejudicially affected.
In this Douglas County, Nebraska, medical malpractice case, the plaintiff's attorney asked, during voir dire:
Now I just want to talk about how important your physical health is to you, your ability to walk, your ability to climb stairs, your ability to do things of that nature, and I'll just go through each and every one of you and probably break here in a minute for — for the noon break.
A number of prospective jurors then spoke about the importance of mobility. One, for example, stated "it would be a hit for sure if he were unable to run around like a chicken with my head cut off making people drunk." However, after the lunch break, the trial court reconsidered its earlier denial of the objection, and held that the question should not be asked again.
After a verdict for plaintiffs, the defendants appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed. It noted that while the voir dire might have been heading in that direction, it had not reached the point of asking jurors to put themsevles in the plaintiff's place. In fact, the jurors had not yet been informed as to the nature of the plaintiff's injuries.
304 Neb. 186 (Oct. 4, 2019)
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com