Legal Definitions - summary jury trial

A summary jury trial is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) designed to help parties in a civil lawsuit understand how a jury might react to their case without going through the full expense and time of a traditional trial. In this process, a condensed version of the legal arguments and evidence is presented to a real, but advisory, jury. The jury then delivers a non-binding verdict, which means the parties are not legally obligated to accept the outcome.

The main purpose of a summary jury trial is to give both sides a realistic preview of a potential trial outcome, allowing them to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. This insight often encourages parties to engage in more productive settlement negotiations, potentially resolving the dispute without the need for a lengthy and costly full trial.

• Example 1: Complex Business Contract Dispute

  Imagine two large corporations are locked in a multi-million dollar lawsuit over a complex breach of contract. The case involves intricate financial data, expert testimony, and potentially months of trial time. Both companies have spent significant resources on legal fees and discovery, but neither is sure how a jury of ordinary citizens would interpret the highly technical evidence and legal arguments.

  To avoid a full, protracted trial, they agree to a summary jury trial. Each side presents a shortened version of their case, including key witness testimony and evidence, to a mock jury in a single day. The jury then deliberates and provides an advisory verdict. This verdict, even though not legally binding, gives both corporations a crucial understanding of how an impartial jury might view their claims and defenses, helping them reassess their settlement positions and potentially reach an agreement.

• Example 2: Personal Injury Case with Disputed Liability and Damages

  Consider a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a car accident where both drivers claim the other was at fault, and the extent of the injured party's long-term medical needs and associated costs are heavily contested. The plaintiff believes their injuries warrant a large compensation, while the defendant argues they bear little to no responsibility and that the damages claimed are excessive.

  Before committing to a full trial, which could be emotionally and financially draining for both individuals, they opt for a summary jury trial. They present their arguments regarding fault and damages to a jury. The jury's advisory verdict on who was responsible and what amount of damages would be appropriate provides both parties with an objective assessment. This insight can be instrumental in breaking the impasse in negotiations, allowing them to settle the case based on a more realistic expectation of a trial outcome, rather than proceeding to a full, uncertain trial.