Many lawyers and claims professionals say that the litigation process is a search for truth. They will swear allegiance to a jury’s ability to ferret out the truth from conflicting evidence. And yet, more than 90% of all cases settle. The truth can be more slippery than you think.
Each of us receives data through our own lens based on our experience and attitudes. Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything: A Theory of Human Understanding by Bobby Duffy provides multiple examples of people ignoring the facts in front of them. For example, a study reported in Behavioural Public Policy saw subjects looking at the exact same data about the effectiveness of gun control, but interpreting them to favor their own pre-conceived views.
Lawyers know it is impossible to ferret out every possible micro-experience in a potential juror’s background. They depend on the collective knowledge of the group to arrive at a favorable result.
Socrates Said There is No Absolute Truth
All of us filter the information we receive through our own mental and sometimes physical viewpoint. Several witnesses to an event may tell different stories about what occurred. What is more probably true than not? Are you sure?
This conundrum really breaks down when fact-finders are asked to decide between expert opinions. I often tell mediating parties about a case I was involved in which ended with a large verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The pivotal issue was causation. Did they really think the defendant’s act caused plaintiff’s damages? It didn’t matter. The jurors’ collective response was summarized by one representative statement: “She was just so sick.”
The Search for Truth is an Obstacle to Settlement
More often than not, parties never get to a judgment which establishes the “truth.” They do settle, but not before spending time and money beyond a point when they knew enough to settle.