Investors Business Daily: 27 Powers of Persuasion

Chris St. Hilaire's upcoming book 27 Powers of Persuasion was recently featured in Investors Business Daily:

Make A Powerful Case

By Cord Cooper

Getting ahead often means winning people to your point of view. It depends heavily on your approach — and the allies you tap to build your case.

• Bring 'em in. If the idea involves risk, some will be hesitant to show early support, says business coach Chris St. Hilaire, author of "27 Powers of Persuasion."

To win people over, use what he calls "third-party validation." Mention key people who support your idea — whether execs, co-workers or industry heavyweights.

If the idea's gaining traction, "nobody wants to be the last" to climb aboard, he noted.

• Defuse. "One of the easiest ways to soothe an ego is to use the phrase 'From my perspective,'" St. Hilaire said. "Perspective is an incredibly useful word that implies you're going to take the emotion out of the conversation."

• Play it up. When presenting viewpoints, look for strengths in each situation. If you're the only woman in a meeting, "own that perspective instead of ignoring it," St. Hilaire said.

He suggested trying something like this: "Can I tell you what I'm hearing from women? They account for 43% of this market."

If you're young or transitioning to a new career, you may be seen as lacking experience. How to fight it? Offer fresh insights convincingly. Back ideas up with facts.

• Show appreciation. If trying to persuade your boss in a one-on-one meeting, "use the first few minutes to make him feel valued," St. Hilaire said.

Thank him for taking the time to meet with you, then get to the point quickly.

• Phrase it positively. When presenting your case, use key words that gain support, such as choice, accountability and fairness. He gave this example: "I want to make sure you have choices, and that in the end someone is held accountable so we ensure the fairest result."

• Give 'em ammo. To bring people aboard, arm your allies with facts — talking points and statistics they can use to make your case, he says. Keep your points brief, so allies — and their audience — can remember them.

In presentations, simplify your story as much as possible. Show how the endgame can be reached. Stress the benefits.

• Size 'em up. Howard Gardner, author of "Changing Minds," suggests asking yourself:

Does the person you're trying to persuade respond well to an upfront approach, or should you open with questions and examples?

What are the person's hot-button issues?

Is the topic you're about to broach one of those issues?

• Compromise. When seeking support, don't respond to requests with a negative. Saying no has an air of finality. Look for common ground with a "let's-try-this" approach, St. Hilaire said.

• Keep cool. The more calmly you make your case, the more effective it'll be, notes communications coach Jack Griffin, author of "How to Say It at Work."

• Be prepared. List the negatives people could raise — then address them early in your presentation.

CLICK HERE TO PRE-ORDER THE BOOK!

Toyota's Troubles

In our automotive research experience, we’ve learned that just as Volvo is associated with “safety” and Mercedes-Benz with “luxury,” the Toyota brand carries incredibly strong connotations with “reliability.” Furthermore, many consumers agree Toyota’s sterling reputation for trouble-free ownership is worth a premium over other more “stylish” or performance-oriented brands.

Now, Toyota’s reputation for dependability is under siege. And from our perspective, the company mas made some crucial mistakes in addressing consumer anxiety.

In Jury Impact President Chris St. Hilaire’s upcoming book, The 27 Powers of Persuasion, three chapters specifically apply to Toyota’s current situation:

*Go on the Offensive
*Take Responsibility—It Will Be Assigned Anyway
*Release Bad News—All of It—Quickly

One of the most essential elements of any messaging campaign is going on the offensive. Whether presenting at trial, selling a product, or addressing public relations nightmares, we always stress to our clients the importance of going on the offensive. Toyota, on the other hand, seemed until recently to be taking a reactive approach to criticisms.

In September 2009, after concerns surfaced about accelerators sticking under floor mats, causing four deaths, Toyota recalled 3.8 million autos (this followed a 55,000-vehicle recall in 2007 for the same issue).

The first apology from CEO Akio Toyoda, when he reassured the public “we guarantee [our customers’] safety,” was on January 29 of this year. That four-month delay is hardly going on the offensive.

From a PR perspective, Toyota has seemed content trying to isolate its issues to a few specific models and fighting fires only as they flare up. Specifically, since the floor mat and sticky accelerator issues surfaced, a Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h recall has been issued related to faulty brakes, and reports are now surfacing about steering problems with Corollas. Making matters worse, Toyota now admits it was fully aware of these braking problems yet chose not to issue a fix or recall.

This failure to act (including an early refusal to fix accelerators already at the dealership because, according to its U.S. Safety spokesperson, “Toyota continues selling models involved in the recall, expecting that they work fine because they are new and the throttles don't seem to begin sticking until the vehicle ages”) has led to yet another PR-horror show as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation. Toyota’s piecemeal approach to revealing problems it was well aware of has drawn out what could have been one really bad news week into a months-long cascade of bad press.

This stresses the importance of releasing bad news—all of it—quickly. Toyota’s reactive, after-the-fact strategy for addressing problems puts the company at a disadvantage for several reasons: 1) It is spending too much time responding to new criticisms to get ahead of the bad news, 2) waiting for the attacks to come in before addressing known issues makes the company seem defensive instead of preemptive, and 3) there is a growing perception Toyota is are not proactively monitoring vehicle safety, and only addressing things for which it is “caught in the act.”

By waiting too long to go on the offensive, being slow to address new concerns, and failing to put all of the bad news on the table at once, Toyota has allowed the media to control the message, resulting in public relations nightmare and a piling-on effect.

In a February 9 Washington Post op-ed, Toyoda explained what the company is doing to prevent issues like these from arising in the future, specifically a "top-to-bottom review" of Toyota's global operations. That’s great news, but a bit late. This apology, in which he concedes Toyota needs to investigate consumer complaints more quickly, comes after months of failing to investigate consumer complaints more quickly.

However, the company should be credited for finally taking responsibility. Some would say it’s a bold move, but based on our experience, responsibility will be assigned anyway—so if you’re aware of problems, it’s always better to admit mistakes as early as possible.

Which brings us to another crucial element to a successful communication campaign: presenting a cohesive, consistent message. Instead of creating new messages for each new problem, from early on Toyota could have been playing to longstanding predispositions about its product quality and presented a broad message to address the safety and reliability of the larger brand.

Consumers don’t care which models have steering issues, which are prone to floor mats jamming under the gas pedal, the parts supplier responsible for faulty pedals, or the intricacies of the dealership and factory fixes—they just want to be reassured the car they’re driving is safe. And that’s the big picture message that seems to only be coming out now in recent mea culpas, press releases, and television ads.

Considering Toyota lost $21 billion in market share in just one week, these blunders clearly aren’t minor. Instead, they highlight the consequences of failing to go on the offensive with a cohesive, consistent message. However, they will have fresh opportunities to apply these messaging principles, as CNN reports the lawsuits have already started in earnest.

We hope that Honda, which just issued a major recall related to airbags, will learn from Toyota’s missteps.

-Todd Fairbanks

Board Certification

During a recent focus group involving hospital credentialing, 18 of 24 jurors said they believe doctors must be board certified to practice medicine.

Based on the frequency of similar responses, we began surveying on the issue last year during groups involving medical malpractice. So far we’ve asked 487 jurors: “Do you think your primary care doctor is board certified?”

Of those polled, 18.9% said “I don’t know” and an astounding 80.3% said “yes.” Perhaps most telling is that only four out of 487 said “no.”

This means that a vast majority of jurors from all regions, backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and incomes assume their doctor is board certified. Our experience tells us this confusion results from an assumption that board certification and medical licensing are one and the same.

Naturally, the question arises: if a doctor involved in a lawsuit is not board certified, how do you discuss the issue? Conversely, if a doctor is board certified, how do you use juror predispositions to your advantage?

Second question first – when doctors are board certified, you need to talk about it. Play to juror predispositions and highlight doctor education, training, experience, as well as the dedication it takes to pass board exams and establish oneself in a specialty. By playing to juror perceptions that doctors should be board certified (whether actually required or not), you establish and bolster their credibility.

Now to the tougher question where there’s no easy answer. When trying a case involving a doctor who is not board certified, you must recognize that jurors are going to perceive it as a net negative. We have tested many ways to address this issue during research, with limited success.

With that said, a lack of board certification makes contextualizing the rest of the doctor’s experience all the more important. We suggest spending considerable time talking about the education they do have, including the number of surgeries or other relevant procedures performed, specific qualifications, fellowships completed, and other credentials. Highlighting that experience can somewhat mitigate the negative biases seen in the above juror statistic.

During the coming year, we’re adding new questions to our Depth Charts to provide you with more quantitative data. If you have any suggestions for juror questions or things you’d like to know specifically, let us know. We’d love to hear them.

-Todd Fairbanks

Poll: Apparent Agency

Agency claims are some of the most difficult to defend in medical malpractice work, due to jurors’ predisposition that if a medical mistake happens inside a hospital, then the hospital is ultimately responsible.

We tried to quantify this perception in a recent national poll, asking 1,001 Americans whether they agree or disagree with the following statement:

If a medical mistake occurs in a hospital, then the hospital is responsible for everything that happens under its roof. The results show that seven out of 10 jurors are likely to assume from the outset that a hospital is responsible for the actions of any and all doctors practicing within the hospital walls.

STRONGLY AGREE: 47.3%
SOMEWHAT AGREE: 28.1%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE: 11.2%
STRONGLY DISAGREE: 9.2%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSE: 4.2%

In addition, these perceptions of blanket responsibility increase as jurors' education and household income levels decreased. In fact, 63% of jurors with less than a high school education and 57% of those with only a high school education strongly agreed, compared to 46% of college graduates and 40% of those with post-graduate study or degrees. Finally, 64%of those with household incomes of less than $30,000 strongly agreed, while just 36% of those with household incomes of more than $100,000 strongly agreed.

Overcoming the predisposition is possible, but as you can see , getting the right jurors--and the right message--is key.

*The poll, conducted from July 24-27, surveyed 1,001 U.S. residents older than 18 and has a 3.1% margin of error.

The Dials Don't Lie

We always talk about the importance of third-party credibility in trial. Now watch us use it.

We recently conducted research for a bad faith case involving a significant jury award and an alleged failure to settle the claim beforehand. The plaintiff says the defendant insurer should have known a costly verdict was probable and ponied up more money to settle early. More specifically, the plaintiff says the defendant would have known about this risk if they had done a focus group or mock trial.

During our research, an argument testing the validity of focus groups as a method of assessing a case’s potential was the highest scoring among either plaintiff or defendant statements, with a score of 83.5. If you’ve seen our Instant Response dials in action, you know that's a "home run" score.

Knowing the potential for a multi-million-dollar verdict in this county, [the insurer] should have engaged in jury research through a focus group or mock trial to determine what the potential was for a large verdict. Instead, they went into the trial “blind” and unprepared – placing the [client’s] reputation and resources in an even more vulnerable position.

AVERAGE ARGUMENT SCORE: 83.5

Now you don't have to rely only on our (admittedly biased) opinion that focus groups are a good thing. Jurors think so, too.

ARTICLE: Jury seated for Marianna home-invasion, murder trial

From David Angier at the Panama City News Herald, we learn of a juror dismissed because she might have, possibly, just maybe, had a wee bit of trouble remaining unbiased:

A prospective juror Monday in Howard Sullivan’s murder trial had a startling revelation about a potential witness in that case.

Prosecutor Greg Wilson was asking if anyone on the panel knew Lionel Crawford when a woman raised her hand. He’d gone through a list of potential witnesses and wanted to know if familiarity with a witness would bias a juror for or against their testimony.

"How do you know Mr. Crawford?" Wilson asked.

"He shot me in 2004," the woman replied.

"He shot you?" Wilson asked. After a long pause, he said, "Would it be safe to say you’d have a problem judging his credibility in this case?"

Congratulations, Mr. Wilson, you've just been nominated for Understatment of the Year!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

'Extremely Bored' Runaway Juror Faces Jail Time

According to the Denver Post, a juror came down with a case of "I'm boooooooooored-itis" and, well, just went home:

HILLSBORO, Ore.—A man who left jury duty after lunch because he was "extremely bored" will be back at the courthouse Tuesday to be arraigned on a charge of contempt of court. A police report said officers found the 25-year-old man near his home earlier this month and asked why he skipped out. He said he was bored, and "just couldn't take it" anymore.

Washington County Judge Gayle Nachtigal issued a warrant for his arrest.

Though she wouldn't discuss the specific case, the judge said the maximum penalty for missing jury duty is six months in jail. Penalties, however, are generally waived if the person agrees to perform their civic duty.

We've posted before about the tendency for younger (especially web-savvy) jurors lacking the attention span to make good jurors, but this kid is taking it to a new level.

Okay...

From The Smoking Gun, we learn of one Montana resident's particular--and quite graphic--aversion to serving on a jury. This desire to avoid his civic duties prompted him to whip up a signed affidavit explaining to the court just exactly what he would rather do with his time than sit in a jury box.



Says TSG:

Slye's caustic affidavit, which he prepared with help from his wife Jennifer, can be found below. The document, of course, did not sit well with court officials and led a judge to threaten to jail Slye. But after being summoned to court, Slye apologized for the affidavit and avoided being cited on a criminal failure to appear rap. And he also was excused from serving on a jury.

Success!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE (AND THE UNEDITED AFFIDAVIT)...

ARTICLE: Turbulence Blamed for Paralyzing Woman in Continental Flight

In a frightening story from the Brownsville Monitor, a woman was paralyzed when her Houston-to-McAllen, TX plane encountered turbulence during the (very short) flight.

The woman, 47, was using the plane's bathroom when the aircraft encountered turbulence and descendent [sic] rapidly, throwing her against the ceiling, said Dr. Trey Fulp, an orthopedic spine surgeon treating her at McAllen Medical Center.

He said the woman suffered a fractured neck and was scheduled to undergo surgery on it Monday.

Doctors spent 6 hours operating on her back after the plane landed.

The back injury left her paralyzed from the chest down, Fulp said.

Although some patients recover from this sort of injury, it's unclear whether she will ever be able to walk again, Fulp said.

"Anytime you're dealing with a paraplegic, only time's going to tell," Fulp said.

He did not release the woman's name, citing privacy concerns, but he said she is a local resident.

As of Monday morning, the woman was on a ventilator. He said she is alert, talking and has been visited by family members, but she remains very scared.

...

The lawsuit is pretty much inevitable, but a personal-responsibility-oriented Texas jury would likely find this interesting:

Clark said the flight left Houston late at night after being delayed. The seatbelt signs were illuminated when the plane experienced "sudden turbulence," she said.

ARTICLE: More Workers File Lawsuits Over Popcorn Flavoring

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Dozens of plant workers who claim their health was damaged by exposure to a chemical used to give a buttery flavor to microwave popcorn have filed lawsuits in Cincinnati against makers of the flavoring.

At least 43 workers have filed lawsuits that claim their lungs were damaged by inhaling fumes from the chemical. Some work at a local plant of Givaudan (ZHIV'-uh-dahn) Flavors Corp. of Cincinnati, which supplies the flavoring to food manufacturers. Many others are from a plant in Marion, Ohio, owned by ConAgra Foods, which is based in Omaha, Neb.

Last month, a jury awarded $7.5 million to Ronald Kuiper of Sioux City and against Givaudan. The verdict came a day after the man died.

Kuiper filed suit in 2006 against four companies that made popcorn flavoring used at the American Pop Corn Co., where he worked. The Sioux City company wasn't named in the lawsuit and the other cases were resolved earlier.

As if that wasn't scary enough, last year a man settled a lawsuit (favorably) against a popcorn maker after contracting "popcorn lung." But he wasn't a worker at a large popcorn factory--he was a consumer making microwave popcorn!

Yikes.

Language Matters

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, 53% of Americans believe "capitalism" is better than "socialism."

The telephone survey also revealed that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty seven percent couldn't take a stand if they were buried ankle-deep in concre--ERRR...were not sure which is better.

Here are some demographic details:

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.

But here's the most interesting part:

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets. (emphasis added)

See how a slightly different language choice can have a significantly different result? Although I disagree with their conclusion ("free-market economy" just sounds better than "capitalism," which has had decades of negative connotations heaped upon it), this is a clear example of what we always preach to our clients:

Language matters.

ARTICLE: Austin ERs got 2,678 Visits from 9 People Over 6 Years

According to the Austin American Statesman, there appears to be a bit of ER abuse in its fair city. And by "a bit of ER abuse" I mean "rampant, out of control, why-has-taken-you-six-years-to-put-a-stop-to-this ER abuse."

In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans.

One of the nine spent more than a third of last year in the ER: 145 days. That same patient totaled 554 ER visits from 2003 through 2008.

"We looked at frequent users of emergency departments ... and that's the extreme," said Ann Kitchen, executive director of the Integrated Care Collaboration, the group that presented the report last week to the Travis County Healthcare District board. "What we're really trying to do is find out who's using our emergency rooms ... and find solutions."

...

The ICC staff, meanwhile, has been gathering data so its members could learn more about the kinds of patients who use the ER.

The report that mentioned the nine high-frequency patients didn't include reasons for all of those ER visits and didn't identify the patients because of privacy laws. But Kitchen, a former state legislator from Austin, gave a sketch: All nine speak English; three are homeless; five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50. Seven have a mental health diagnosis and eight have a drug abuse diagnosis. Kitchen said she did not know their citizenship status.

...

In a report last year, Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services said that 10 patients made up more than 1 percent of the system's 130,000 contacts with patients in two years. The patients' most common ailments were stomach or chest pains, injuries or respiratory problems.

In the comments section of this blog, a reader adds, "This means that, on average, each of the nine people visited the ER about once a week." Wow.

Ask any juror in any city what their number one complaint about emergency rooms is, and you'll hear "long waits." And it goes without saying that these negative experiences reinforce predispositions about the quality of health care in the local area.



CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

ARTICLE: As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

Remember when we said technologically-proficient, web-savvy people tend to make worse jurors?

Well, by way of the New York Times, here's another example:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said the defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he was on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against it after a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming Monday. But the judge decided to let the trial continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based only on the facts that the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web, or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from point A to point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

...

The technological landscape has changed so much that today’s judge, Mr. Keene said, “has to explain why this is crucial, and not just go through boilerplate instructions.” And, he said, enforcement goes beyond what the judge can do, noting that “it’s up to juror 11 to make sure juror 12 stays in line.”

It does not always work out that way. Seth A. McDowell, a data support specialist who lives in Albuquerque and works for a financial advising firm, said he was serving on a jury last year when another juror admitted doing a Google search on the defendant, even though she acknowledged that she was not supposed to do so. She said she did not find anything, Mr. McDowell said.

Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul searching, he feels he might have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.

Here is my favorite part:

“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”

Forget about the law, America's Next Top Model is on tonight! And we end on this gem:

Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.

Off to a great start, pal!



CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...

ARTICLE: Confessions of a Hotel Housekeeper

The title of this article alone gave me the heebie jeebies, so naturally I'm going to share it with the rest of you!

I cut corners everywhere I could. Instead of vacuuming, I found that just picking up the larger crumbs from the carpet would do. Rather than scrub the tub with hot water, sometimes it was just a spray-and-wipe kind of day. After several weeks on the job, I discovered that the staff leader who inspected the rooms couldn't tell the difference between a clean sink and one that was simply dry, so I would often just run a rag over the wet spots. But I never skipped changing the sheets. I wouldn't sink that low, no matter how lazy I was feeling.

...

I was disgusted by the many guests I came in contact with through the things they left behind: the hairs on the pillow, the urine on the toilet seat, the half-eaten cookie, the stained sheets. One woman had soiled her sheets so thoroughly that we had to toss them in a biohazard bag—they could never be used again. Rooms where young kids stayed were the worst, with food ground into the carpet and piles of used diapers in the trash. That kind of demoralizing mess could take 45 minutes to clean up. Most maids wore rubber gloves when they worked, but mine were too big, so I discarded them. Unsurprisingly, I got the flu twice.

When you travel as much as we do, a clean, decent hotel room is high on the priority list. I remember one particular trip to Baltimore there was a mix-up at the [REDACTED] hotel. Due to a Red Sox game (we love Baltimore, but there are few things more depressing than the meager turnouts for Orioles games. Only when a "good" team comes to town would there be anything approaching a half-full Camden Yards) all the rooms were booked.

And because we got in so late due to flight delays, the hotel had torn up our reservations in favor of early-bird New Englanders. Unfortunately for us, the entire city was booked solid--we couldn't rent a utility closet if we had $1,500 and an infectious smile. Anyhow, the only place the [REDACTED] hotel could put us up was across town in an incredibly shady area. Having no choice, we drove over and were faced with our worst nightmare.

We're talking long hairs on the shower walls, the stench of cigarettes complimenting (an impressive number of) cigarette burn holes in the comforter, a lumpy, saggy mattress, stained, damp carpet, running toilet, police sirens all night--take my word for it, all it was missing was a chalk outline next to the air conditioner. Needless to say, none of us slept well that night.

The [REDACTED] hotel did the right thing and gave each of the three of us a heaping of hotel points for our troubles, but I'll never forget that particular experience.

And just in case you weren't properly nauseated, I want you to think about the one thing in a hotel room that probably gets the most use: the TV remote control. Consider the sheer number of filthy mitts that have come into contact with that remote before your arrival, and the incredible amount of bacteria and who-knows-what-else clinging to that thing.

Now, within the context of the above article, think about how often the housekeepers hit that thing with a little Formula 409.

Article: Jurors Kicked Off Case For Romance

Just in time for Valentine's Day TheDenverChannel.com(via Fark.com) we are treated to a wonderful story of two jurors falling in love while serving on a jury...for a child-abuse trial.

According to the story, the man and woman were dismissed from the 16-member jury on Tuesday, after people reported seeing them walking arm-in-arm together and giggling with each other.

The former jury showed up Wednesday and sat in the spectator section of the courtroom but he refused to answer questions when approached in the hallway by a reporter.

Here are some details of the child-abuse trial that inspired such romance:

Twenty-nine-year-old Alex 

Midyette is accused in the 2006 death of 11-week-old Jason Midyette. Prosecutors say Jason had 37 broken bones.

Midyette's attorneys say Jason had a metabolic disease and wasn't abused. A doctor testified that Jason had bone abnormalities that were misidentified as fractures.

A doctor testifying for prosecutors said Jason's skull was fractured before he died.

Jason's mother, Molly Midyette, was convicted of child abuse for failing to get medical attention for her son. She is serving a 16-year sentence.

Yikes.

Article: Lawsuit Blames Injury On Lowe's Bathroom Door

Oh, Florida.

According to Tampa Bay Online, a man has filed suit against Lowe's for an unfortunate injury sustained in the loo.

Tommy Rassier says he was using a toilet stall at a Lowe's Home center in Pinellas Park on Aug. 18th when something terrible happened.

According to a lawsuit filed in Pinellas Circuit Court, Rassier was about to sit down when a person unknown to him pushed open the stall door knocking Rassier "in the head and neck with the door," pushing him "back into and against the toilet."

Overall, I'd say this is a pretty crappy situation. RIM-SHOT!

Rassier thought the stall door was locked and faults Lowe's for failing to maintain the door's locking mechanism. The suit says Lowe's was negligent in permitting a dangerous condition.

His lawyer, Joshua Chilson, said it's an unusual case but a valid one. "Bizarre things do happen and that doesn't mean the case is without merit," Chilson said [sounding exactly like a man who believes this case is without merit].

Chilson said Rassier suffered dramatic neck pain when the bathroom stall door hit him and suffered "a herniated disc in his spine." No one called 911 to report the incident.

The person who knocked Rassier in the toilet didn't stick around to leave his name and there were no other witnesses to the mishap, Chilson said.

Chilson said he does have photographs of the broken lock that show several holes indicating the mechanism might have been moved around previously in a failed attempt to make it work properly.

Not for nothing, but you'd think a home-improvement store would have the wherewithal to install a functioning lock on a bathroom door. Just sayin'.

A few questions a jury might pose that could significantly impact the plaintiff's credibility:

-Why was no police report filed?
-There are no witnesses?
-Nobody can track down the most-forceful-bathroom-door-opener-in-the-world?
-A 3/4" door was enough to cause "dramatic neck pain" and a "herniatic disc in his spine"?

Something stinks here.

We are curious if any litigators out there have noticed an increase in frivolous civil suits as the economy worsens. Thus far it's probably anecdotal, but we would love to hear from you if you've noticed a pattern.

Personal Responsibility is Dead

According to Naples Daily News out of Naples, Florida, a man is suing Marriott for injuries he sustained while drunk at their Marco Island hotel.

Michael Fenton admits he’s an alcoholic. He went on a two-day bender at the Marco Island Marriott Resort and Spa last January. In an inebriated state, he then plunged over a stairway some 100 feet. Now, he’s suing the hotel for serving an addict and causing his brain damage.

Fenton...is suing Marriott International Inc. and Marriott Hotel Services Inc., claiming that the bartender knowingly served a person who was addicted to alcohol, despite pleas by his family.

The lawsuit says Fenton got wasted in the hotel bar on January 17, 2008, and his family told the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender complied and Mr. Fenton went to his room to sleep it off.

But the next day, the lawsuit says, he went to the bar and was again served a substantial number of drinks and drank most of the day into the evening.

“The bartender continued serving him even though he was visibly intoxicated,” the lawsuit says. “Family members found Michael Fenton in the bar that evening and requested the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender ignored the request and continued serving him.”

Fenton then went to the “large, double-sided grand open stairwell” on the second floor to go to the bathroom on the first floor. As he tried to negotiate the first several steps, he fell over the handrail to the ground floor and suffered severe and permanent brain damage.

And just for good measure, the plaintiff is claiming the staircase "did not meet state and county building codes or industry standards."

Marco Island's chief code compliance officer, Eric Waddle, sums up my thoughts exactly:

“A building couldn’t have been approved if it didn’t meet code."

One of the accusations against the hotel is, I kid you not, "serving an alcoholic." If you could sue hotels in small towns every time they served an alcoholic in the bar, hotels would cease to exist. Alcoholics and hotel bars go together like Jack and Coke--ERRRRR, I mean, peanut butter and jelly.

Given the strong underlying theme of personal responsibility here, I have a feeling the first question jurors (especially Florida jurors) would ask is: If the family is so concerned about this severe alcoholic, why are they leaving him alone, unsupervised, in a hotel bar for "most of the day into the evening?"

That's like claiming you're terribly concerned about your suicidal teenager, but not bothering to clear the house of guns, knives and rope.

Study: 50 Percent of Smokers Keep Puffing After Cancer Diagnosis

According to a Fox News article:

Even though smoking is a risk factor for multiple types of cancer, more than half of smokers diagnosed with the disease keep using tobacco, and doctors aren't doing enough to help them quit.

A West Virginia University survey published in the Journal of Oncology Practice found that 44 percent of smokers quit after being diagnosed with cancer.

Now, what was your first reaction upon reading that lede? I'm guessing something along the lines of, "What a bunch of bloody fools!"

And that is precisely the reaction we encounter from focus group jurors when discussing smoking habits. In medical malpractice cases, we've observed how a patient's decision to smoke typically illicit strong opinions about personal responsibility. However, it's nothing compared to the vitriol jurors unleash on patients who continue to smoke or resume poor health choices after a bad diagnosis.

Which brings us to the next finding of the study: "doctors aren't doing enough to help them quit."

Less than two thirds, 62 percent, say they received advice from doctors or nurses about quitting the habit.

Dr. Jame Abraham, the study's lead author, says the survey shows there's a need for intervention programs to help cancer patients quit tobacco.

Really? Being diagnosed with cancer isn't enough to make someone quit, but a nurse's stern words and a colorful pamphlet are? Talk about a personal responsibility deficit.

Especially in more conservative jurisdictions, a perceived lack of personal responsibility on the patient's part can heavily influence a jurors' desire to award money.

Meat + Booze + Cash = Marry a 14-Year-Old!

Straight from the oh-man-why-did-it-have-to-be-in-California file, CNN treats us to a story of a father, Jesus Martinez, who sold his underaged daughter's hand in marriage to an 18-year-old boy in exchange for cash, tasty beverages and meat. (So that's what 14-year-olds are going for these days?)

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is the future son-in-law, who had already absconded with the minor Martinez, couldn't even come up with that pitiful dowry! An irate Mr. Martinez called the cops, and hilarity ensued.

Marcelino de Jesus Martinez, 36, of Greenfield, California, was arrested Monday and booked into the Monterey County Jail, Greenfield police said in a statement.

Martinez had arranged through a third party to have his daughter marry the older teenager, identified by authorities as Margarito de Jesus Galindo, of Gonzales, California. In exchange, Galindo was to pay Martinez $16,000 and provide him with 160 cases of beer, 100 cases of soda, 50 cases of Gatorade, two cases of wine, and six cases of meat, Greenfield Police Chief Joe Grebmeier told CNN.

The official felony charge is "receiving money for causing a person to cohabitate." I presume California law doesn't have a provision for receiving carne asada.


But before your fervent head-scratching breaks the skin, we're told this is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, 100% NORMAL in Mr. Martinez' hometown of Oaxaca, Mexico.

In Oaxacan culture, the food and beverages are provided by a prospective bridegroom for the wedding...

Who am I to argue with culture? And then there's this little gem:

Authorities believe the young girl went with Galindo willingly, and no coercion was involved, he said. However, the girl is four years younger than California's age of consent, although the law does allow 16-year-olds to marry with parental consent.

Wait, what? Is it just me, or is California slowly starting to become Florida?

And just in case people weren't satisfactorily nauseated, the article slips in this little nugget:

He said his department has long heard rumors of children as young as 12 being sold or offered for sale. The Greenfield police statement said arranged marriages between young girls and older men "have become a local problem."

Yeah, I'd say when 12-year-olds are getting hitched to adult males, "local problem" is a fair assessment.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Article: Dennis Quaid and His Wife Settle with Hospital

According to the Associated Press:

Documents show Dennis Quaid and his wife have agreed to a a $750,000 settlement with a hospital that gave his newborn twins an overdose of blood thinner. A petition filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday shows the Quaids and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center have agreed on the parents' damages, but can still pursue claims for their children.

The documents state Cedars-Sinai is not admitting wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Documents show the Quaids sued drug maker Baxter Healthcare Corp. in Illinois over the drug's packaging, but that case has been dismissed. The petition filed Monday indicates Baxter may also sue Cedars-Sinai, which administered too much Heparin to several patients in November 2007, including the Quaids' twins.

If you recall, the Quaids' twins, along with another newborn at Cedars-Sinai, were accidentally given 1,000 times the normal dosage of heparin. Instead of administering vials with a 10 unit per millileter concentration, the infants recieved 10,000 units per milliliter . According to the lawsuit against Cedar-Sinai, the adult and newborn medications were allegedly stored in the same place, providing opportunity for this very outcome.

The lawsuit against Baxter was a product liability case regarding the labeling and packaging of the vials, which it is alleged were strikingly similar for newborn and adult dosages. Baxter, which used a blue label for both the 10 and 1,000 unit vials, claimed Cedars-Sinai was responsible for improper use of their product.

When the suit was filed, Baxter spokeswoman said, "While we strive to clearly differentiate our products and dosages, no amount of differentiation will replace the value of clinicians carefully reviewing and reading a drug name and dose before dispensing and administering it."

Importantly, and thankfully, none of these infants suffered permanent damage. Sadly, three of six infants given the same 10,000 units in Indianapolis in 2006 were not as fortunate and passed away.