top of page
Sacramento State Capitol Copy Final.jpg

Results | Wasson & Associates, Inc.

Wasson & Associates, Inc. continues to monitor the jury sheets from all jurisdictions in California, Nevada and Arizona as well as the federal district courts in order to keep ourselves abreast of significant jury verdicts. The principle purpose of our review is to provide our clients with updated data and information we believe is critical in the overall evaluation of personal injury cases. We believe that the ultimate “value” of a case is determined by the jury verdict. Therefore, before a jury verdict is rendered, the “ultimate value” of any case is unknown. We believe that in order to properly evaluate any case, an important starting point is the determination of the “value” of the case. From this starting point, our clients are better able to evaluate the case for purposes entering settlement negotiations. In addition, this “value” enables our clients to assess the risks associated with litigation. We believe that these factors can have a significant effect on the settlement offers and demands made by the various parties involved in the claim. However, as we all know very well, before the final verdict is reached in a case, each side determines the “value” often using different criteria, methodologies and in some cases widely different interpretations of the same facts. Our review of these results and the cases and jury verdicts we have identified is not a predictor of the value of any particular case. It provides our clients with information of overall trends in personal injury jury verdicts so that they are better able to assess the value of any particular case.

Our report does not include all of the jury verdicts rendered in these jurisdictions, but rather a rough sampling of verdicts throughout these states from several different sources we believe are a representation of trends in jury verdicts.  Additionally, our initial reports have primarily focused on California with supplemental reports for Nevada and Arizona reported in other pages of our site.  We find that the overall value and our comments from these select cases provided valuable educational information concerning particular jury verdicts as well as overall trends. To further assist our clients, we include comments, opinions and observations from experts, jury consultants and others. In addition, we continue to work with Harry Plotkin, a California jury consultant, who has contributed to our better understanding of jury verdicts and the ways in which the jury as a whole is potentially influenced and ultimately decides cases. Mr. Plotkin has experience advising clients in a wide variety of cases, including personal injury claims. As a result, we believe his insight into the results of particular cases and overall trends in very valuable.

Obviously, we are able to provide much more information concerning jury verdicts involving cases handled by our firm. Where the information is provided by experts involved in the particular reported case or otherwise from first-hand knowledge of important parts of the case, we will identify the expert. But in order to keep this survey brief, we have refrained from elaborating on the particular role the expert played in the case. This information is available upon request.

In order to provide our clients with a better understanding of the implications of any particular jury verdict, we have divided the survey into two large jurisdictions, Northern and Southern California. The Northern jurisdiction comprises both Northern and Eastern judicial districts. The Southern jurisdiction includes both Central and Southern judicial districts. We believe that there are significant differences in the judicial districts within these jurisdictions to merit separate analysis. In addition, we have further divided the verdicts by individual judicial district. This subdivision is more prominently reflected in judicial districts of Southern California than in Northern California.

For purposes of our reports, Northern California consists of the judicial districts within the following counties: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Eureka, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Oakland, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Mateo, Sonoma, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Jose, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba.

Southern California consists of the judicial districts within the following counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Diego. As a general rule the judicial districts in Ventura County tend to be more conservative. Though Los Angeles County comprises a large number of individual judicial districts and the individual districts are often very distinct, Los Angeles tends to be a more liberal jurisdiction. Orange County tends to be a very conservative jurisdiction.

The following report of jury verdicts originates from the various cases in which the attorneys at Wasson & Associates, Inc. have first-hand knowledge by virtue of the fact that we were the trial attorneys handling the case.

bottom of page