![]() ![]() However, recently in the case of McNamara v. Usually, the first chance the defense has to address these reptile theory tactics before the court is at trial in the form of a Motion in Limine. For example, “the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are in place to protect all drivers on the road, would you agree?” The common-sense answer is of course, “yes.” “A violation of one of these “safety rules” will pose a danger to the public, right?” Again, the common-sense answer is, “yes.” Accordingly, any alleged violation of even one of the countless regulations contained in the FMCSR now amounts to an immediate danger to the public, therefore triggering the emotion and fear of a juror, and now confusing the legal standard of care with the “safety rule” that was allegedly violated. These questions will attempt to demonstrate that violations of these alleged “safety rules” results in an immediate danger to the community, including jurors and the Plaintiff. Through deposition questioning of trucking defendants, the reptile-trained Plaintiff’s attorney will attempt to establish general safety rules that seem so elementary, that to disagree with them would be difficult and contrary to the common perception of most lay jurors. and ask if a driver or other company representative knew of said rules and standards and followed them. This will focus on safety rules and handbooks, industry standards, etc. ![]() It is typically seen in discovery requests and deposition questions that attempt to establish various “safety rules” intended to protect the community, including the Plaintiff. A reptile-trained plaintiff’s attorney will begin this strategy early and develop it throughout discovery. This argument effectively abolishes the necessary neutrality of a juror and requests he or she render a verdict based on his or her own emotion, bias, life experience, and personal interest, rather than on the evidence presented in the case and during trial. The reptile theory is a version of the “Golden Rule” argument which is generally barred by Illinois Courts because it asks jurors to place him- or herself in the shoes of the Plaintiff. These excessive jury awards are often referred to as “nuclear verdicts” and are all too common in Cook County, and in many other jurisdictions around the country. Plaintiff’s attorneys use reptile theory tactics to incite the emotions, fears, and survival instincts of jurors by appealing to their “reptile brains.” This is often accomplished by tapping into safety concerns or worries of communities at large to secure punitive verdicts in cases where punitive damages are not allowed. Trucking defense attorneys are all too familiar with “reptile theory” strategies in discovery and at trial. Home > Blog > General > Reptile Theory Case Summary Reptile Theory Case Summary ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |