Aircraft Crash

Case Summary:

This case is about a huge corporation that knew of a dangerous part yet chose not to make it safe. Because of the corporation's lack of concern for human life and safety, many people now have to suffer for the rest of their life.

THEME:

Plaintiff's Theme:

 

This case boils down to precautions (in this case, inspection and maintenance) and your case should help the jury understand that the manufacturers didn't use all the safety precautions that were reasonable. Stress that plaintiffs took all the necessary precautions whereas the defendants did not. The pilot was lulled into a false sense of security by the defendant.

Defendant's Theme:

 

Regardless of all the testing done on a product a company can't control all human error and can't "idiot proof" all products. Second, we met all the standards required. Third, the incidence rate is minuscule. Fourth, accidents happen or they are acts of God. Fifth, unknown explanation; don't blame us.

 

 

  1. How many of you have read or heard about any cases similar to this case?

Analysis: This may work for or against either side. If the case is in the press, the jurors may have a pre determined opinion, or may not be able to be objective.

  1. How many of you have ever used a product which you thought was defective? (By that I mean something that didn't work right or that was not safe.)

 

Analysis: For the plaintiffs, you want people to have been bothered by the fact that something was defective. The defense however, again wants objectivity.

 

  1. What was that product? What happened? What, if anything, did you do or consider doing about it?

 

  1. Generally, how do you feel about the amount of testing industry does of products before they go the market? Do you think anything else should be done?

 

 

  1. What is your attitude towards policy and social responsibility of companies toward their consumers?

Analysis: A juror who answers that companies have a social responsibility would be a favorable juror for the plaintiff, not for the defendant.

 

  1. Do you as a consumer think it is your right to be warned if there are dangers involved in using a product? Why do you feel that way?

 

Analysis: A juror who answers yes to this question, again, would be a favorable juror for the plaintiff, not for the defendant.

 

  1. Are any of you involved in the manufacture of a product?

 

  1. When you purchase any product from a store or any other place of business, do you expect it to work properly and safely? What do you do if it doesn't?

 

Analysis: Those who take action when products malfunction (example actively write letters) would be good jurors for the plaintiffs and not for the defendants.

 

  1. What's the difference between a dummy light and a gauge?

 

Analysis: Here you are weeding out technical savvy jurors.  The defense would want these experts in the jury as they can speak the language of parts in the case.

 

  1. How many of you feel it is simply wrong to sue a company that has either manufactured or sold a commercial product?

 

Analysis: For the defense, those who feel it is wrong to sue are going to be starting out in favor of the manufacturer (the defense client).

 

  1. How many of you, when you buy a product, carefully read all the instructions or warnings that come with it?

 

Analysis: Those people who do this are going to be really analytical about any failure, so they would be good jurors for the plaintiff.

 

  1. Do you believe that a company which manufactures a product or a company who sells a product should stand behind it?

 

Analysis: A juror who answers yes to this question, again, would be a favorable juror for the plaintiff, not for the defendant.

 

  1. Are you or do you know any pilots?

Analysis: This may show a personal connection between the juror and the case.  It would be a conflict of interest.

 

  1. I am concerned that you will only be concerned with the helicopter crash. Do you all understand that this case is about a defective product?

Analysis: Here, you will are trying to get the sensitivity of the event separated from the case that is being tried.    This is about a product. If you DON’T clarify this, a juror might be left that is biased against the DEFENSE.

 

  1. What are your feelings about Helicopters?

 

  1. Have you ever used a product for many years before a defect became apparent?

 

Analysis: A juror who answers yes to this question, again, would be a favorable juror for the plaintiff, not for the defendant.

 

  1. The manufacturer met the standards. Does this mean you'll let them off the hook? Can they still be negligent?

 

  1. Have you ever depended upon a system to work properly and it just fell apart?

 

Analysis: Those that have would be favorable jurors for the plaintiffs, as they can relate to why they are suing the defendants.

 

  1. If a product meets FAA standards, does that make it safe? Explain.

Analysis: As yes here would be a good juror for the defense, because in this case the product did meet FAA standards.

 

  1. Do you think it's ever appropriate to award a large sum of money as compensation for an injury? Give example?

 

  1. Do you always buy the same brand name even if a similar or equal brand is cheaper?

Analysis: Anyone here that says yes would be favorable to the plaintiff.  They may be examining the fact that the defendants bought cheaper products and that is what causes the crash.

 

  1. Have any of you lost a loved one in an accident? What happened and would that experience affect your ability to decide this case on the facts?

Analysis: Here we have the sensitivity factor. Anyone who may have gone through a tragedy may not be able to separate the crash from this case. 

 

  1. Do you have any limits in your mind now as to the amount of money you would be able to award someone for the loss of the use of eyes or a limb?

Analysis: Again, here we have the sensitivity factor. Anyone who may have this thought through already where they have NO limits; they may already have a bias against the defense.

 

IF LIMIT IN MIND:

 

  1. So you feel there should be a limit to the amount of money a person can receive for an injury of this kind? What is that limit? So at this point, you have an opinion as to the top amount of money that would be justified - is that a fair statement?

 

IF NO LIMIT IN MIND:

 

  1. For example, if the evidence showed the loss of what was a million dollars, you wouldn't say to yourself, "that's just too much money"?