This is the question currently before the South Dakota Supreme Court in Russo et al. v. Takata Corp et al. (oral arguments which were heard last week can be accessed here). Takata concerned a 1999 roll-over car accident in which a teenage driver died. Plaintiffs, who claimed that the seat belts in the car malfunctioned, sued Takata, the seat belt manufacturers.
At trial, a jury ruled in favor of the defendant. However, a judge ordered a new trial after it was discovered that one juror had conducted extensive Internet research about Takata after receiving his jury summons, but prior to voir dire. During deliberations, the juror revealed, very briefly, his research about Takata (information about other lawsuits against the company) to other jurors.
The juror's research never came out during voir dire because neither plaintiff nor defense counsel specifically inquired about whether any jurors had conducted research on Takata. Rather, jurors were asked general questions like whether they "know any of the folks here." At least one justice on the South Dakota Supreme Court wondered whether that was sufficient questioning in light of society's increased reliance on the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of Takata, the case highlights the importance of asking specific voir dire questions--ones that address the changing method of how individuals gather and learn information.
Do buyers become more or less impulsive, or, more or less reliant on the advice of others as they move about? Are they harder to find or easier to win over situationally? Stay tuned to this space for some answers.
Posted by: viagra online | September 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM