Giving Meaning to Big Money

One of the most common frustrations shared by civil defense attorneys is the “Monopoly Money” phenomenon – the juror tendency to award big money to plaintiffs as if it were nothing more than worthless paper.  Especially when the defendant has been portrayed as a corporate entity with huge profits, jurors seem all too willing to give away large sums simply because the defendant “can afford it.”

Through our research, we’ve discovered that the main problem is most jurors just don’t have any concept of what these large numbers really mean.  To the typical middle-class juror, $2 million and $10 million are equally inconceivable sums, and both are more than most jurors will earn in a lifetime.  When the numbers are so large and abstract and jurors have the opportunity to be benevolent at no cost to themselves, why not give the plaintiff a little more for his or her trouble?  “One million, five million – it’s all the same to me,” one focus group juror said recently.

The “Monopoly Money” problem is particularly concerning when it comes to noneconomic damages.  Economic damages can at least are tied to something tangible, such as medical bills, tax returns or an economist’s report.  But noneconomic damages, to compensate for amorphous things such as pain or loss of companionship, are where jurors are most likely to give awards that seem out of proportion with the plaintiff’s injuries.

To counteract this tendency, we’ve found it necessary to give meaning to large dollar amounts by explaining them in terms average people can understand.  For example, we recently had a case in which there was virtually no permanent physical injury, yet focus group jurors wanted to award $4 million just for pain and suffering.  We broke down that eye-popping sum into something jurors could understand: $4 million is equal to $100,000 per year for 40 years.  Put in context, several jurors agreed that was an excessive amount for this plaintiff.

You might also try to get through to jurors by comparing the plaintiff’s request to what average workers earn.  For example, in the case above, you could describe $4 million as twice the median American family’s annual household income for 40 years.  For very large sums, such as $10 million, you could describe this as the median American family’s household income for 200 years. 

By comparing those big sums to what normal people – and the jurors themselves – make, you can turn the fairness issue around on the plaintiff.  Is it really fair, jurors might wonder, for this plaintiff to get an award that is 200 times what my family makes in a year? 

Whatever your tactic, we believe it is essential to put proposed damages numbers in a context that allows jurors to grasp numbers that are larger than most people can truly understand.  If you’d like our help coming up with ways to communicate these ideas to a jury, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net.