The NY Medical Malpractice blog reproduces an entire judicial decision in the entry, “Don’t Judges Know Not To Give Gifts To Litigants?“. Here is a snip:

Throughout this lengthy and acrimonious trial, the Trial Justice demonstrated a propensity to admonish the defense counsel at a substantially more frequent rate than she did the plaintiffs’ counsel, often admonishing the defense counsel for actions about which she failed to comment when committed by the plaintiffs’ counsel. She gave the plaintiffs’ counsel significantly more leeway in cross-examining witnesses and in making extraneous comments than she gave the defense counsel. During the trial and in front of the jury, she gave a gift to the infant plaintiff. Later, also during trial, she gave each jury member a gift when the court recessed for a holiday break. Under the circumstances, the defendants were denied a fair trial by virtue of the cumulative effect of the improper conduct of the trial court, and as a result, the jury could not have considered the issues at trial in a fair, calm, and unprejudiced manner (see Ougourlian v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 5 AD3d 644, 645; Gentile v Terrace Hgts. Hosp., 57 AD2d 585; Perkins v New York Racing Assn., 51 AD2d 585). Accordingly, a new trial is warranted.

But this was not all of it. The jury actually awarded the plaintiff $600, 000. Then the lawyers claimed that they actually meant to award the amount annually. So the judged raised the amount. The defendants found themselves liable for over $14 million.

We note that the trial court also erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to correct an alleged ministerial error made by the jury in recording its verdict, based upon the submission of affidavits of each juror sworn to more than a week after the verdict was rendered, and upon improperly holding a hearing to determine whether the affidavits reflected each juror’s true intent. Here, although the plaintiffs’ counsel allegedly learned from at least two jurors, immediately after their discharge and before they left the courthouse, that they had intended their award of damages in each category to be on an annual basis, the plaintiffs’ counsel did not procure affidavits from any of the jury members until more than one week later. During that time, the plaintiffs’ counsel [*3]obviously communicated with each juror, exposing them to “outside influences of the most prejudicial sort” (Moisakis v Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp., 265 AD2d 457, 458). In the interest of protecting against the posttrial harassment of jurors and the instability of jury verdicts, the trial court should not have altered the jury’s verdict under these unique circumstances (see Moisakis v Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp., 265 AD2d at 457, 458; cf. Smith v Field, 302 AD2d 585).

One of the main complaints about the way medical malpractice cases work, is that the system is designed to make jurors want to find a way to give the person making the accusations money. Two people are presented to them. One is bad off and the other is well off. Where do the jury’s sympathies naturally lie?

I suppose someone can reply that many doctors don’t get convicted. But the fact is that (1) a trial is typically expensive and demoralizing for them anyway, and (2) monetarily doctors do lose enough that, in some specialties, like mammograms for instance, we are experiencing shortages.

Here one could claim the system worked. But at what cost to the doctor and the court system?

For further reading check out Law.com: $14 Million Med-Mal Verdict Tossed Out due to Judge’s Actions (hat tip: PointOfLaw > hat tip: Kevin MD)