|
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
|
|
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Well, of course. posted by rivervalley817 on June 25, 2020 at 09:17:19:
I think it's obvious Bayer decided to settle because they were losing cases and juries were awarding excessive punitive damages. It was a pragmatic decision that doesn't necessarily indicate there's a smoking gun.
Juries are incapable of deciding matters of science. Jury selection will weed out anyone who has the education and background to understand the science at the root of the case. So when the two sides' expert witnesses conflict over scientific conclusions, the court may appoint an independent expert and hope that they are a truly neutral party, and hope that a lay person jury can sort through multiple different and conflicting scientific opinions. The burden of proof in civil cases is satisfied if the jury believes there's > 50% chance that the proposition is true, so jurors may still have substantial doubts when they make their decision.
Not to mention some juries seem motivated to reward damages out of sympathy, knowing the company can afford to pay and none of its officers will be liable.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I wouldn't assume anything about the science because of a jury award - Dave_K 06/25/2011:10:32 06/25/20 (1)
- RE: I wouldn't assume anything about the science because of a jury award - rivervalley817 11:20:38 06/25/20 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]