Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/239

 214

THE GREEN BAG

MR. DUANE I UNDERSTAND it to be the object of to insist on trial or to hold out for extrava this symposium to draw out sugges gant settlements. Hence a liberal system tions as to the correction of abuses in per of settlement in advance of trial is of uni sonal injury litigation, and the reduction of versal benefit. the large sums now being paid by defendants 3. In that large class of cases where to the degree that they are paid unjustly. defendant's liability is undisputed I have A considerable experience during the past found it efficacious to offer no evidence and twelve years in defending such cases, and to confine myself entirely to a discussion to a much less extent in representing plain of the plaintiff's evidence as qualified and tiffs, has led me to form certain conclusions cut down by cross-examination. This method tends to destroy all antagonism on which I will state seriatim. 1. The surest safeguard against having the part of the jury, and in this jurisdiction to pay an unjust verdict, or an excessive entitles the defendant to the last speech. I verdict where the plaintiff is entitled to have found that in scarcely ten per cent recover, is to make a thorough preparation of the cases so tried have the jury rendered of the defendant's case. In addition to an excessive verdict. obtaining signed statements in advance 4. In defending cases which turn on from all of the witnesses to the occurrence, medical questions, I am strongly opposed to the history of the injured party should be calling medical witnesses for the defense investigated not only since the accident except where absolutely necessary. A con but for a considerable time previous thereto. test between rival experts employing obscure This investigation should include the char and lengthy medical terms tends to aggra acter and amount of his work, his daily vate the apparent seriousness of a case, habits during the time that he alleges ill with a corresponding increase in the verdict ness or in capacity, and, in a general way, all rendered. In my judgment a more efficacious facts which will furnish material for a suc way is to depend largely upon the crosscessful cross-examination of the plaintiff examination of the plaintiff's physicians and his witnesses, both by involving them and experts, assisted by the prompting of in contradictions and by surrounding plain a competent medical man. If the defend tiff with such an aroma of deceit, fraud, or ant's physician has examined the plaintiffs pretense as will neutralize, if not destroy, in the presence of his own doctor, the latter when called can often be made to admit on the sympathy which all juries feel instinc tively for a man who asks for something as cross-examination the favorable facts elicited contrasted with a man who withholds it. when the plaintiff was thus examined. In 2. No personal injury case should ever the trial of very serious cases, I have found be allowed to go to trial by defendant unless that the policy of having three or four there is a reasonable chance of securing a eminent specialists seated near me has a favorable verdict; or, when indefensible, most subduing effect upon the testimony that a jury will give a lower verdict than of plaintiff's physicians, who in such a plaintiff is willing to accept in settlement. presence dare not jeopardize their reputa It is most undesirable for defendants of tions by untrue or exaggerated medical this class that too many cases should be statements, believing that if they do so,. tried, for the number of large and showy these specialists will follow them to the verdicts will thereby be increased. One stand and destroy their testimony. 5. As a means of preventing perjury I large verdict advertised in the newspapers will encourage innumerable litigants either strongly advocate the policy of arresting,.