If you haven’t seen it already, make sure you read Movin’ Meat’s Malpractice and John Ritter. He makes a really good case both that there was no negligence and that the accused would almost certainly lose anyway. Read the whole thing.  To give you a taste, below is his conclusion:

Which begs the question — if there was not negligence, then why have nine other entities settled for a total cumulative settlement of $14 million?

Because juries are not qualified to make the determination as to whether there was negligence. They are laypersons with limited knowledge of medicine, diagnosis, or statistics. They are swayed by the pathos: the suffering of the widow and small children, the sadness of the loss of a beloved star, and the righteous anger of the family who believe the doctors killed their loved one:

“You can’t treat my kid’s dad for something and kill him in the process,” [Ritter's wife] said. “I think the money will show how angry the jury will be about what happened to John and what could happen to them.”

They will listen to grey-bearded professors contradict one another, flip a coin as to who was more credible, and issue a verdict. And the plaintiffs are swinging a big stick — a $67 million one. If you lose, you lose very big. Safer to settle for policy limits and walk away, rather than take that downside risk.

And the lay population wonders why doctors are cynical and mistrusting of the medical malpractice system.

One might add, “And the lay population wonders why it is getting harder to find doctors who still practice. ”