Your jurors are sure to come to the courthouse with preconceptions built upon their past experiences. They often approach driving issues with a particularly strong set of fixed ideas because it is such a familiar part of their world. Your goal will be to de-select pool members whose bias is likely to be harmful if you can, and to craft your case narrative to correspond to the seated jurors' entrenched expectations and beliefs. Since we know you cannot eliminate all bias in jurors, you must find a way to identify it, and either work around it or make it operate in favor of your client.
Our own focus group studies show that when it comes to driving, many jurors have an ingrained sense that it is an inherently dangerous activity. This outlook can favor defendants who want to take advantage of jurors' willingness to believe that an accident could have occurred even if a particular defendant or driver did not behave carelessly. In effect, they can conceive that some events happen purely by accident and might occur without any fault on the part of the defendant.
Along similar lines, another preconception that can affect reaction to a motor vehicle accident is whether jurors think of themselves as believing in "fate". If a juror comes to a case with a fatalistic viewpoint, it suggests that they are more likely to believe that accidents sometimes happen for no reason, without any particular negligence on the part of one driver. Jurors with that mindset might be less likely to blame a driver for failing to control events on the road, because they can imagine a scenario in which people don't have control over everything. This can pose an obstacle for a plaintiff who wants to place blame on a driver they claim is careless.
Jurors have a natural inclination to seek protection from the perceived inherent dangers of everyday driving, and this can surface in their attitudes toward careless drivers during deliberations. People approach most decisions by thinking: How does this affect me? Jurors do not want to think that the highways are so unsafe that they simply cannot drive, or that their safety is under constant threat while on the road. Though jurors carry the preconception that driving is intrinsically dangerous, they also consider that their own good driving skills and habits afford them enough control over hazardous situations to make them feel safe, regardless of their predispositions. While they know that catastrophic accidents can take place on the road, people continue to drive because they feel confident in their own ability to drive with prudence and to respond to a crisis.
Jurors typically work toward an explanation of a case that fits what they already believe, and matches their ingrained ideas. By finding fault and placing blame for an accident upon drivers who can be shown to have acted carelessly, they can have some confidence that only reckless, poor drivers – people different from themselves – are unsafe on the road. Jurors are likely to be reluctant to reward a careless actor for putting people like themselves in harm's way.
Jurors also tend to operate with a general feeling of protectiveness toward innocent "bystanders" on the highway, such as other motorists or passengers who suffer because of a driver's carelessness. Jurors carry with them a strong desire that their loved ones and family members not be harmed by the dangerous behavior of individuals, especially reckless drivers, and that feeling extends to protect people legitimately in the area.
In creating your case narrative, it will help to account for deep-rooted beliefs and instincts in jurors to safeguard their loved ones and innocent parties. Ideally you will conform to a narrative or case theory which not only shows that your own client used a high degree of care, but that the opposing party failed to follow the rules of the road, so that he endangered others on the highway. Casting the other driver as having put others in danger will appeal to jurors' basic protective instincts.
