The factors that influence people serving on juries have changed as a result of COVID-19 and media coverage of national politics. Trial lawyers should be aware of the studies and research documenting these changes of influence in their jury selection preparation. One motivating factor, in particular, that stands out for the majority of juror groups is concern for safety. In an article “The Rise of Safety’s Is Influencing Verdicts” https://imslegal.com/articles/safetyism-influencing-verdicts, it is pointed out:

“With technological and medical advances, humans are safer now than they have ever been. Along with these innovations and increases in overall safety, people’s belief that they should be absolutely free from the risk of harm or discomfort has also risen. This phenomenon has been referred to as “safetyism.”

This belief leads to a general attitude that corporations should protect people with stringent safety testing and standards. Jurors feel less in control of their own fates and futures, believing bad things that happen to them are caused by external forces—what social psychologists call an “external locus of control.”

As a result, damages can be seen as a means of exerting personal control over corporations and justice, leading to large rewards for a single claim. The article reported on an online survey with two hundred jury eligible people. It showed that “ 92% of respondents agreed with the statement, ‘Companies should take every possible measure to ensure their products are 100% safe.” Regarding warnings, 83% agreed that products and pharmaceuticals should warn about every possible risk or side effect, no matter how small. Moreover, the results showed that 69% of respondents indicated they would stop using a product if they read it might cause cancer. In fact, 66% said that they had already stopped using a product due to health and safety concerns.”

Generation Z jurors (those born between 1997 and 2012), according to recent research, are concerned about  safety above all other concerns. On juries, they are likely to have an attitude about safety and protection that influences their verdict. The viewpoint results in a focus of extreme or unrealistic standards of protection. This attitude results in acceptance of the “Reptile” approach of presenting a plaintiff’s case. Verdicts and damages awards that are motivated by jurors who are trying to maximize safety for themselves and society.

Another article, “Safety-ism and Conspiracies Are Affecting Juries The New Normal”  https://www.dechert.com//content/dam/dechert%20files/knowledge/publication/Safety-ism-and-Conspiracies-Are-Affecting-Juries-IDQ.pdf reviewed the issue of conspiracy as it relates to industry safety. It reported on the rise of conspiracy-minded jurors. The number one indicator of a plaintiff-leaning juror was a current belief in conspiracy theories about industry corrupting the disclosure of facts about product safety for profit. This includes jurors who believe that private industry has co-opted governmental agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), resulting in any approval or endorsements by these governmental agencies being meaningless.

Another phenomenon, of “safety-ism jurors,” is the factor of “tribalism”—i.e., persons who have an “us versus them” way of thinking. The result is strong, emotional opinions about the parties in the case. More often than not by  positioning the plaintiff as the “good” individual against the “evil” defendant corporation.

Jurors perceive evidence and testimony through the lens of their experiences, anxieties, and attitudes. Safety-ism jurors will view mass tort, product liability, or personal injury matters through their safetyism glasses. As a result, particularly with conservative juries, it is important to focus the case on the defendant’s wrongful conduct with detail on the rules they’ve broken. Juries need to understand why a defendant’s conduct violated rules and standards that everyone expects all members of the community to follow to keep the community safe.  We need to focus during all parts of the trial—opening statements, presenting evidence, and closing arguments—on the defendant’s conduct and how it violated community standards

The goal is to present our case in a way that lets jurors see themselves as active protagonists in the story with the result that justice being served. We want jurors to see their role is more than just listening to two opposing parties presenting evidence—it is to act as the voice of their community, and in essence decide what their community’s standards of care and safety rules are and will be.