The Rambo Effect On Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiff's Perspective

Two distinctly different developments in the 1990's influenced personal injury litigation and reduced average personal injury settlements. First, insurance defense lawyers created the practice known as "Rambo Litigation." In the past, most attorneys had followed a trend of reasonableness, in that undisputed issues would commonly be resolved by admission or agreement. Rambo litigation began the current era in which defense attorneys may dispute all issues, regardless of merit. The effect of widespread unmeritorious defenses is intended to raise the cost of litigation and cause unnecessary delays. Secondly, tort reform is designed to bias all potential jurors against plaintiffs, resulting in a reduction in average verdicts.

An attorney who attempts to bias a single juror commits a felony under most state laws, yet the insurance industry is clearly allowed to bias all potential jurors throughout the nation with false and/or misleading advertisements. Because of these two developments, the average settlement offer for the same hypothetical case declined steadily over the last 10 years. Today, to receive fair value for damages sustained, plaintiffs are increasingly required to try cases to a jury to receive a fair result.

The Personal Injury Litigation Process

Lawsuits are commenced by filing either a petition or complaint. Thereafter, the discovery process ordinarily includes required answers to interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents and other items. Depositions are also authorized which have the same force and effect as trial testimony. All steps are subject to objection and frequently require court hearings to resolve issues. Personal injury litigation is highly adversarial, and frequently requires several years to reach trial in large metropolitan areas.

See also: Contemporary trends in personal injury litigation and attorney tactics - lawyer search issues.