![]() ![]() 411, 411 (2017) (“For many trial lawyers, one theory of the moment advances ‘the reptilian strategy.’”) Jean R. Sirico, Jr., The Trial Lawyer and the Reptilian Brain: A Critique, 65 Clev. A recent Westlaw search found citations to the reptile in only three conventional law review articles written by law school faculty members, and as nearly as I can tell, none of the authors are or were a torts scholar. 1 1Īlthough it is impossible to know the state of torts scholars’ awareness with certainty, what they publish is some, and arguably pretty probative, evidence. The reptile has been invisible or barely visible to torts scholars. It is governed by what I will call “shadow” tort law. ![]() And that battle is taking place largely outside the purview of the appellate courts. At the core of the reptile battle, then, is a dispute about the meaning of negligence. Opponents of the reptile contend that plaintiffs’ attorneys unjustifiably create this reaction by subtly modifying the applicable standard of care in negligence cases. The authors urge plaintiffs’ attorneys to focus on generating anger at the defendant, as distinguished from sympathy for plaintiffs, so that jurors will perceive the defendant’s conduct as a threat to their own security and the security of their community. ![]() The book’s thesis is that the way for plaintiffs to win tort cases and secure large verdicts is to appeal to the reptilian part of jurors’ brains, which (like threatened snakes) reacts with anger at threats to their security. For over a decade, a battle has been raging in the trial courts of this country over something called the “reptile theory,” often simply referred to by insiders as “the reptile.” The term comes from Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |