Posted On: April 27, 2006, 5:32 pm CDT

Posted By: danger

It appears that the discussion has grown to a larger subject than that of joint and several liability and into that of the merits of a jury system. I see some very good comments here on both sides and I think that illustrates the difficult nature of the issue.
It appears to me that most juries come in and attempt to do their job without bias. I think bad verdicts are as much a result of poor lawyering as they are of a bad jury system.
If we discount the bad cases on both sides I think we are left with a legal system that works most of the time. Unfortunately, some juries run amok. Sometimes they appear to run amok but on closer examination their decisions are reasonable. I have learned to look very hard at the facts and what was presented at trial before I credit or discredit the jury. I really hate to see the juries ability to decide cases taken away.
In the case of joint and several liability, I am not as bothered by the loss of that doctrine as I am by the institution of arbitrary limits on awards. I think juries ought to be allowed to make the call on damages subject to controls by trial judges and appellate courts. I think the problem is that we often argue from a realm of theory or concept, while our courts deal with reality and fact. In the real world, fairness is a matter of perspective.