The jury ruled in favor of Victoria Osteen and against Sharon Brown, proving once again that not all juries are out of control. As I stated in my previous post, when you look at the facts closely, you’ll find, most of the time though not always, that there are reasons for the so-called run away verdict. The fact is I’ve seen many meritorious cases where the plaintiff is undercompensated or even loses. Lawyers don’t call going to trial “rolling the dice” for nothing. The system is not perfect. It is just the best we have.
The jury’s foreman, Gilles Labbe, said he and other jurors believed what happened on the plane was only a minor dispute between a passenger and one or more of the flight attendants.
‘My personal point of view (the lawsuit) was a complete waste of time because the incident didn’t rise to any kind of level. I fly all the time. I’ve seen a lot worse than that happen on airplanes.’
I commend the Osteens for not knuckling under and taking the easy way out. It must be nice to be able to well afford the cost of a good defense against this sort of suit. That is not always the case. But then again, few lawsuits seem quite as clear cut as this one. Although the Osteens could still have lost on any given day, the evidence did seem to favor them. This suit does show that those who are looking to cash in through a lawsuit cannot always depend on the lawsuit lottery. It also shows that you cannot count on the embarassment factor of your accusations causing the other side to pay you off.