Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 105 > Issue 7 (2007)
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.
Philip G. Peters Jr.,
Doctors & Juries,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol105/iss7/7
Evidence Commons, Litigation Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons