Legal Definitions - quotient verdict

A quotient verdict is a method by which a jury calculates the amount of money to award in a lawsuit. This occurs when each juror proposes a monetary figure, all these figures are added together, and the sum is then divided by the number of jurors to arrive at an average. This average then becomes the final award.

This method is generally considered improper in legal proceedings. The primary concern is that a quotient verdict may not reflect a genuine, thoughtful deliberation of the evidence and facts presented during the trial. Instead, it can be seen as a speculative calculation, especially if the jurors agree beforehand to be bound by the resulting average, regardless of whether it aligns with their individual assessment of the evidence. If a court discovers that a jury reached its decision through a quotient verdict, it can lead to the verdict being overturned, potentially resulting in a new trial or a mistrial.

• Example 1: Personal Injury Case

  In a lawsuit stemming from a car accident, a jury is tasked with determining the amount of money the injured plaintiff should receive for pain and suffering. After hearing all the evidence, the jurors are struggling to agree on a specific dollar figure. One juror suggests, "Let's all write down the amount we think is fair for pain and suffering, add them up, and divide by twelve. Whatever number we get, that's our award." The other jurors agree, write down amounts ranging from $50,000 to $500,000, and the average comes out to $275,000, which they then report as their verdict.

  This illustrates a quotient verdict because the final award is an average of individual, potentially un-deliberated figures, rather than a consensus reached through discussion and careful consideration of the evidence for pain and suffering. The jury bypassed a thorough discussion of the specific factors contributing to pain and suffering in favor of a mathematical shortcut.

• Example 2: Property Damage Dispute

  A homeowner sues a landscaping company for negligence that resulted in significant damage to their property. The jury needs to decide the cost of repairs and additional compensation for the homeowner's inconvenience. After hours of debate, the jurors are at an impasse regarding the exact amount. One juror proposes, "Everyone put down a number for the total damages, and we'll just take the average to settle this." They proceed to do so, and the resulting average of their individual estimates becomes the final damage award.

  This is a quotient verdict because the jury bypassed a detailed discussion of specific repair costs, diminished property value, or inconvenience compensation. Instead, they used a mathematical average of their initial, possibly arbitrary, individual figures, rather than arriving at a figure through collective evaluation of the evidence presented during the trial.

• Example 3: Breach of Contract

  A small business sues a supplier for breach of contract, claiming lost profits due to the supplier's failure to deliver goods on time. The financial figures are complex, and jurors find it difficult to pinpoint an exact loss. During deliberations, the jury foreman, frustrated by the lack of agreement, suggests, "Let's each write down what we believe the lost profits are, from zero to five million dollars, and we'll just average those numbers. We'll use that average as our final decision." All jurors explicitly agree to this method before writing down their numbers.

  This is a clear example of a quotient verdict, made even more problematic because the jury explicitly agreed in advance to be bound by the average. This pre-agreement demonstrates a lack of true deliberation on the complex financial evidence and instead relies on a mechanical calculation that may not reflect a reasoned assessment of the actual damages caused by the breach of contract.