But putting the car in neutral wasn’t even an option? You should know how to handle your vehicle in emergency situations in order to get a driver’s license. I think someone needs to sue OK for giving that person a driver’s license.
I think that Toyota needs to be held responsible for manufacturing a dangerous vehicle. Who would expect their vehicle to take over and not be able to stop?
I don’t think that was Toyota’s intent. So just to clarify your reasoning if the weather person says it will be sunny today, and then a blizzard hits and you slide off the road and hit a parked car with people in it, then you sue the weather person because they shouldn’t have given you false information. In your reasoning, you should have no fault at all, like putting chains on your vehicle, or not driving in the storm. Just like in this case, the person didn’t have any responsibility to put their car in neutral or turn it off.
How do you prevent a jury from reaching an irrational, unsound, and unjust verdict based on highly improbable causality? How could this outcome have been averted in a venue where likely jurors are often responsive to plaintiff’s induction of emotion-based decision making and conspiracy theories?
Undertaking properly conducted jury research would be a start, but jury research alone only shows what a jury is likely to do absent a countervailing intervention from the defense team.
What is required, therefore, is jury research in which the effectiveness of plausible counter strategies is empirically tested, measured and verified. We call this Scientific Jury Research because the research exercise is designed, organized and carried out in accordance with the principals and methods of empirical science.
In fact, there are only a handful of jury research outfits across the county that understand the science of jury research and who are qualified by training and experience to deliver the effective intelligence byproduct.
What is clear form this outcome is that Toyota did not use competent, qualified jury research practitioners or, in the alternative, that trial counsel followed its own untested and therefore unreliable defense strategy.
In any event, when a poor result is achieved in one case and avoided in another, it is important to properly evaluate the reasons. One of them will assuredly be that poor choices were made for jury research.
When I was in law school clear back in 1989 there was discussion of professional paid juries. Scientists on science cases, financial and accountants on complex financial cases, medical personnel on malpractice, etc. etc. Interesting idea. Perhaps a combination of a professional + lay jury would be helpful. And let’s face it…most people try to get out of jury duty and do get out it. When working people are not willing to serve then we will get a jury of the readily available.
One small problem, idk. We are entitled to a jury of our “peers.” If I am not a scientist, accountant, or medical professional, I’m not sure I want them on my jury. Just sayin…
But putting the car in neutral wasn’t even an option? You should know how to handle your vehicle in emergency situations in order to get a driver’s license. I think someone needs to sue OK for giving that person a driver’s license.
I think that Toyota needs to be held responsible for manufacturing a dangerous vehicle. Who would expect their vehicle to take over and not be able to stop?
I don’t think that was Toyota’s intent. So just to clarify your reasoning if the weather person says it will be sunny today, and then a blizzard hits and you slide off the road and hit a parked car with people in it, then you sue the weather person because they shouldn’t have given you false information. In your reasoning, you should have no fault at all, like putting chains on your vehicle, or not driving in the storm. Just like in this case, the person didn’t have any responsibility to put their car in neutral or turn it off.
I’d like to see the balance sheets on that!
How do you prevent a jury from reaching an irrational, unsound, and unjust verdict based on highly improbable causality? How could this outcome have been averted in a venue where likely jurors are often responsive to plaintiff’s induction of emotion-based decision making and conspiracy theories?
Undertaking properly conducted jury research would be a start, but jury research alone only shows what a jury is likely to do absent a countervailing intervention from the defense team.
What is required, therefore, is jury research in which the effectiveness of plausible counter strategies is empirically tested, measured and verified. We call this Scientific Jury Research because the research exercise is designed, organized and carried out in accordance with the principals and methods of empirical science.
In fact, there are only a handful of jury research outfits across the county that understand the science of jury research and who are qualified by training and experience to deliver the effective intelligence byproduct.
What is clear form this outcome is that Toyota did not use competent, qualified jury research practitioners or, in the alternative, that trial counsel followed its own untested and therefore unreliable defense strategy.
In any event, when a poor result is achieved in one case and avoided in another, it is important to properly evaluate the reasons. One of them will assuredly be that poor choices were made for jury research.
Jack M. Honeycutt, PHD, MPA, MPS, RCP
When I was in law school clear back in 1989 there was discussion of professional paid juries. Scientists on science cases, financial and accountants on complex financial cases, medical personnel on malpractice, etc. etc. Interesting idea. Perhaps a combination of a professional + lay jury would be helpful. And let’s face it…most people try to get out of jury duty and do get out it. When working people are not willing to serve then we will get a jury of the readily available.
One small problem, idk. We are entitled to a jury of our “peers.” If I am not a scientist, accountant, or medical professional, I’m not sure I want them on my jury. Just sayin…