Q#1: Do you find that Defendant, Dairy Products, Inc., was negligent in hiring Defendant, Gary Clausen, as a driver?

N=25

Q#2: Was the negligence of Defendant, Dairy Products, Inc., a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s harm?

N=19

Q#3: State the amount of damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the occurrence, for the following damages:

N=19  

Q#4: Why did you vote that way?

Juror 1. I believe the defendant ran the red light and hit the plaintiff.

Juror 2. There was no direct evidence as to who caused the accident.

Juror 3. Dairy Products hired a driver that was dangerous.

Juror 4. Dairy Products knew or should have known that Gary Clausen was an unsafe driver. They should be punished.

Juror 5. By law, Dairy Products only had to review a driver’s one year driving record, and they did.

Juror 6. A person died and someone should be held responsible for it.

Juror 7. I feel such sympathy for the plaintiff’s family. I can’t imagine what they are going through.

Juror 8. People sue for everything. Sometimes accidents just happen. You can’t blame someone for an accident.

Juror 9. The plaintiffs asked for too much money. It turned me off. I couldn’t do it.

Juror 10. Gary Clausen should never have been hired. He was an accident waiting to happen.

Juror 11. Dairy Products was negligent in their hiring, training, and supervision policies.

Juror 12. Dairy Products should not be allowed to ever put a driver on the road again.

Juror 13. The defendant gave Gary Clausen 0 points on his driver evaluation form. That was negligent.

Juror 14. Dairy Products does not give periodic road tests to its drivers.

Juror 15. Gary Clausen never should have been hired. They should have looked at his driving record.

Juror 16. Not enough evidence.

Juror 17. Drivers who drive big trucks should be properly trained. Clausen was not.

Juror 18. Clausen did not cause the accident and therefore, should not be held responsible.

Juror 19. The driver evaluation form was wrong.

Juror 20. The defendant should have reviewed his full driving history.

Juror 21. Clausen’s driving record.

Juror 22. Clausen ran the red light and killed Mr. Smith.

Juror 23. Dairy Product’s hiring, training and supervision policies were negligent. They were below standard.

Juror 24. The defendant made no attempt to hire safe drivers. They didn’t care who they hired as long as they put people behind the wheel.

Juror 25. Clausen’s driving record was not reviewed.

Q#5: How strongly do you feel about your vote?

N=25

Q#6: Out of the following, what was the strongest argument for the plaintiff?

A. Gary Clausen should never have been hired as a driver.

B. Gary Clausen was not properly trained to drive.

C. Gary Clausen caused the accident and Mr. Smith’s death.

D. There were none.

Q#7: Out of the following, what was the strongest argument for the defense?

A. Dairy Product’s hiring, training, and supervision policies were adequate.

B. By law, Dairy Products only had to review a driver’s one year driving record.

C. Gary Clausen did not cause the accident.

D. There were none.

Q#8: What additional information would be helpful in deciding this case?

Juror 1. Have any other drivers at Dairy Products been in accidents? If so, how did Dairy Products handle their violations?

Juror 2. All of Dairy Product’s drivers’ accident records.

Juror 3. Was Dairy Products aware of Mr. Clausen’s driving record?

Juror 4. What was Mr. Smith like?

Juror 5. How long was Mr. Smith alive after impact?

Juror 6. Was Dairy Products aware of Clausen’s driving violations while he was employed?

Juror 7. Details of Mr. Smith’s death.

Juror 8. I’d like to see the family to know who this money is going to.

Juror 9. How sympathetic is Dairy Products?

Juror 10.  Police reports.

Juror 11.  More evidence as to who caused the accident.

Juror 12.  Had any other drivers at Dairy Products caused accidents?

Juror 13.  Was Gary Clausen in a hurry to make a delivery the day of the accident?

Juror 14.  Dairy Products corporate rep’s testimony.

Juror 15.  Police investigation as to who caused the accident.

Juror 16.  Did Mr. Smith contribute to the accident?

Juror 17.  Who filled out the driver evaluation form and why did they put 0 points?

Juror 18.  The other driver who caused the accident’s testimony.

Juror 19.  Mr. Smith’s medical records.

Juror 20.  Does Dairy Products have a history of hiring drivers with bad driving records?

Juror 21.  Did Clausen have any accidents while driving for Dairy Products?

Juror 22.  Any evidence that Dairy Products knew Clausen was a bad driver but hired him anyway.

Juror 23.  Testimony from other drivers at Dairy Products as to how they were trained.

Juror 24.  Police reports/accident reconstruction.

Juror 25.  More information on the plaintiff’s damages.

Q#9: Do you have any recommendations to improve this case?

Juror 1. Settle.

Juror 2. Prove that Gary Clausen did not cause the accident.

Juror 3. Put Mr. Smith’s wife on the witness stand to explain what he was like.

Juror 4. Be clearer on what Dairy Product’s hiring, training, and supervision practices were and how they violated their own policies.

Juror 5. I would show that Gary Clausen did not cause Mr. Smith’s death, and therefore, does not owe the family any money.

Juror 6. I don’t think Dairy Products should proceed with the case.

Juror 7. Provide evidence that Dairy Products knew Clausen was a bad driver, but hired him anyway.

Juror 8. I would ask for less money.

Juror 9. I didn’t quite understand the accident illustration. I would get a better drawing.

Juror 10. Give examples of other drivers that caused accidents.

Juror 11. Detail all of the plaintiff’s damages.

Juror 12. No improvements needed.

Juror 13. I had a difficult time putting a value on pain and suffering. Maybe explain better what happened to Mr. Smith when he was hit by the truck.

Juror 14. Show more information on Dairy Products’ hiring policies and who the person is that hires people.

Juror 15. Settle the case. Do not go to court.

Juror 16. Focus on the other driver and his driving record.

Juror 17. Prove that Dairy Products has a history of failing to properly train its drivers.

Juror 18. Show that what Dairy Products did was common for the industry.

Juror 19. Give more details as to what Mrs. Smith lost. She lost a husband and a companion. If they were really close, she should get more money.

Juror 20. Provide testimony from the police officer who investigated the case to show that Gary Clausen caused the accident.

Juror 21. Give more information regarding the law that Dairy Products only had to review his one year driving history.

Juror 22. Tell the defense to pay up.

Juror 23. I think the defense needs better arguments all together. They were pretty weak. I don’t think anything they said was convincing.

Juror 24. Show how many drivers Dairy Products employs and how many of them have bad records and/or were not tested.

Juror 25. Get Gary Clausen to admit he was at fault for the accident.