Category: 

What Are Jury Awards?

In a jury trial, the jurors assess the culpability of the accused and may award monetary damages.
Jury awards usually must be approved by a judge.
While the judge presides in a case, the jury often decides the monetary awards as part of its decision.
More than half the jurors must agree for a decision to be made.
Article Details
  • Written By: C. Mitchell
  • Edited By: John Allen
  • Last Modified Date: 15 October 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The fewest car accident fatalities occur on Tuesdays.  more...

October 23 ,  1983 :  Suicide bombers killed nearly 300 US and French military troops in Beirut.  more...

Under the common law system, trials are either bench trials or jury trials. In a bench trial, a judge or panel of judges issues the final ruling. In a jury trial, although a judge always presides, it is a jury who issues the ruling and, if applicable, awards monetary damages. Jury awards are monetary amounts that a jury has determined one party must pay the other.

Juries emerged in the English common law system as a way for citizens to take some responsibility in the trying of community members. It was believed that a jury of one’s peers could issue a perhaps fairer, more appropriate ruling than could a judge. A jury is usually a body of 12 community members, called jurors, who together must confer on the facts and reach a single opinion about how the law should apply to the case. When a case involves a person who has been injured, be it physically, emotionally, or financially, oftentimes the jury awards damages.

Ad

The jury trial system remains in use in England, and has also been adapted and applied in the United States, Australia, and other common law-based countries. In England, a jury trial is usually the default, whereas in the United States, a bench trial is. A jury trial can always be requested in the US, however, and the choice of a jury trial is often made strategically. Sympathetic plaintiffs — that is, plaintiffs that jury members can easily identify with — often walk away with higher jury awards than they would awards coming from a judge sitting alone.

Any award that the jury decides on must be reached by a majority of the jurors. The decisions need not be made unanimously, but more than half of the jurors must agree to an award before it can be read to the court. Deliberations and juror decisions can take hours, and sometimes days.

Although juries have some freedom with respect to how they award damages, jury awards must still comport with the law. Most of the time, governing law sets a range for appropriate damage awards. Jury awards must fit within that range to be valid.

Jury awards must also be approved by a judge. In this way, the judge acts as overseer for the case, and serves as a final checkpoint to enforcing the law. Most of the time, judges sign off on jury awards automatically, and order that they be enforced. In cases where the damages seem disproportionately high, however, judges can lower the awards, or eliminate them outright, even if they are within the legally allowable range.

Judicial decreases of jury awards typically happen when multiple counts or crimes are at play. In a personal injury case, for instance, a plaintiff might be found liable for recklessness, for negligent endangerment, for property damage, for present and future medical expenses, for future suffering, and for emotional distress. If the jury were to award damages at the high end of permitted damages for each of those counts, the total award could be astronomical — which could also be disproportionate to the underlying action. It is the judge’s job to make sure that the jury awards are not only justifiable, but also fair to both parties.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

Phaedrus
Post 2

I think when you're talking about jury awards for personal injury, there are a lot of tangible expenses that can be added up, like lost income and medical bills and rehabilitation. I would have no problem making those kinds of damage awards if I were on a jury. That person suffered real losses because of someone else's negligence.

What I have a problem with is punitive damage awards. I understand that some companies need to have a financial incentive in order to fix a problem that caused a wrongful death, but I've seen juries award plaintiffs millions of dollars for what I thought were relatively minor injuries. I believe punitive damages have a place in the legal system, but I don't like seeing juries award crazy numbers like $1 billion USD just because they want to stick it to an unpopular corporation.

Ruggercat68
Post 1

When I served on a jury, we found the defendant liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant happened to be a very large corporation, so we knew that we could discuss some large numbers when it came to jury awards for personal injury. Some jurors came up with some punitive damages awards that were almost obscene, though.

We decided to calculate how much income the plaintiff could have earned during the remaining years of his working life. We also added up what we thought the loss of companionship (he was totally paralyzed and severely burned) and the cost of hiring private health care professionals to care for him at home. That's how we came up with our damage awards.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email