Overview

Plaintiff LaTonya Powell collided with an 18-wheeler that had stopped beyond the designated stop bar and was encroaching into the intersection. Although the vehicle damage appeared minimal, the plaintiff suffered significant injuries and faced substantial projected future medical expenses. Plaintiff’s counsel engaged Lit Lab to evaluate juror attitudes and identify risks that could undermine the damages case.

The Challenge

The case faced a critical perceptual hurdle:

  • The plaintiff collided with an 18-wheeler improperly stopped past the stop bar, encroaching into the intersection. 
  • Despite serious injuries, the vehicle damage appeared minimal, creating a risk that jurors would automatically discount the severity of injury. 
  • Plaintiff had significantly projected future medical expenses, increasing the stakes of juror perception. 

Counsel needed to understand which jurors were predisposed to equate low property damage with low injury potential.

Our Approach

To surface these biases, Lit Lab conducted an Adversarial Mock Trial, presenting both sides’ strongest arguments to mock jurors from the venue.

The goal: Identify which jurors were irreversibly anchored to “minimal damage = minimal injury” thinking—and develop a targeted voir dire strategy to eliminate them.

Key Insights

The mock trial revealed two critical findings:

1. Some Jurors Held Rigid, Non-Negotiable Beliefs

Several mock jurors expressed an unwavering belief that minimal vehicle damage always means minimal injury—and were inclined to award little or no damages, regardless of the evidence. 

2. Voir Dire Could Neutralize the Risk

Lit Lab advised plaintiff’s counsel to use targeted voir dire to identify these jurors early and strike them—even if they appeared favorable on other issues.
This strategy ensured that jurors predisposed against the plaintiff’s case never made it onto the final panel.

Outcome

Armed with Lit Lab’s insights, plaintiff’s counsel conducted voir dire with precision—identifying and striking prospective jurors who held inflexible “low damage = no injury” beliefs.

Final Result: The trial verdict came in at three times the defense’s best pretrial offer.