It is well-known among trial attorneys that insurance companies employ top-notch experts to challenge injury victims in court. However, the general public, who often comprise the jury pool, may not be as aware of this fact. A personal injury victim who has experienced severe injuries frequently finds themselves in a courtroom, facing an array of insurance company experts. These so-called "hired guns" are tasked with casting doubt on the victim's injuries.
Jury members are often swayed by the persuasive tactics of these seemingly credible experts. As a result, they may return unfavorable verdicts due to the exploitation of their biases. The ultimate goal of these experts, who are handsomely compensated by insurance companies, is to create a smokescreen that obscures the true extent of the victim's suffering from the jury's consideration. This ensures that these experts continue to receive financial rewards for their services.
While the law promises a right to compensation for damages and pain and suffering, in practice, this guarantee is often elusive and difficult to secure. Unless a personal injury victim's injuries are severe enough for a lawyer to invest heavily in expert witnesses, who may or may not be on par with insurance companies' experts, these victims are unlikely to find legal representation to defend their rights in court.
For a defense verdict, only four jurors need to be convinced. In contrast, a personal injury victim must persuade nine out of twelve jurors to achieve a favorable outcome. Regrettably, jurors are often susceptible to the notion that a lawsuit has been filed for ulterior financial motives. Unwittingly, these jurors may one day find themselves in the victim's position, pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Despite this possibility, they frequently and unhesitatingly pass judgment in favor of insurance companies, to the detriment of injured parties.