Appeals Court Affirms $177 Million Jury Award in Hyatt Sexual Assault Case, Upholds Jury Instructions on Negligence
The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a St. Louis jury’s verdict awarding $28 million in compensatory damages and $149 million in punitive damages to Shannon Dugan, who was sexually assaulted by a Hyatt security guard in her hotel room. Central to the court's ruling was its analysis of the jury instructions, particularly on negligent supervision claims, which Hyatt challenged as defective.
Hyatt argued that the instructions on negligent supervision failed to require the jury to decide whether the guard, D.W., acted outside the scope of his employment and whether Hyatt knew or should have foreseen the need to control him. The court rejected these claims, holding that these elements pertain to the court’s legal determination of duty rather than factual questions for the jury. As such, they were not required to be included in the jury instructions.
The court emphasized Hyatt’s own admissions during the trial, including that it had a duty to supervise its security guards to ensure guest safety. Testimony revealed that Hyatt failed to enforce its policies requiring two guards for wellness checks and failed to train its employees adequately. The court also noted that the jury instructions accurately tracked the elements of negligence law in Missouri and did not constitute a "roving commission."
The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions and the punitive damages claim were consistent with Missouri law, affirming the $177 million judgment in favor of Dugan.
Improving Voir Dire: A Judge’s Perspective on Streamlining Jury Selection
In a recent newsletter for the Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law, Judge Jack Zouhary shared insights into his approach to voir dire, emphasizing the importance of adapting jury selection to the needs of each case. He highlighted the variability in jury selection processes across courts, with some voir dire sessions lasting only a few hours while others extend over multiple days. Judge Zouhary underscores the importance of a structured yet flexible process that balances efficiency with the need for fairness and impartiality.
One of the key practices Judge Zouhary employs is the use of pretrial juror questionnaires to gather background information, allowing parties to identify potential conflicts before jurors even step into the courtroom. The judge also uses a PowerPoint presentation to educate jurors about the history and importance of jury service, helping to make them more comfortable with the process. Personal conversations with jurors help the judge and counsel gauge each individual's suitability for the trial, creating a positive and engaging experience. Judge Zouhary also emphasizes making jury service rewarding, including thoughtful touches like a “Deliberation Cake” and post-verdict evaluations, which ensure jurors feel appreciated for their critical civic role. This innovative approach offers a replicable model for improving jury selection processes while enhancing the overall juror experience.
The Jury Experience: Theater Meets Justice
This spring, New York City will host one of the most intriguing live theater events of the year: The Jury Experience. An already sold-out performance, this immersive courtroom drama invites participants to step into the shoes of a juror. Attendees won’t just watch the drama unfold—they'll actively decide the verdict. From evaluating witness testimonies to analyzing forensic evidence, participants are tasked with navigating moral dilemmas and delivering the ultimate judgment.
Featuring live actors and a dynamic script, The Jury Experience challenges audience members to think critically about justice, guilt, and innocence. Each performance lasts 60 minutes and is open to those aged 12 and older. While tickets are no longer available, readers can sign up to be notified of any openings.
Minding the Jury Bubble: The Impact of Technology on Juror Impartiality
In "Bursting the Jury Bubble” for the Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, John Gismondi examines the increasing challenges to maintaining juror impartiality in the digital age. Traditionally, jurors were thought to deliberate within a “bubble” free from external influences, insulated by court instructions and the controlled environment of the courtroom. However, the rise of smartphones, social media, and easy access to online information has fundamentally changed this dynamic. Gismondi highlights how jurors now have unprecedented access to extrajudicial information, which poses significant risks to the fairness of trials.
The article explores strategies courts can adopt to address this growing concern. Gismondi emphasizes the importance of clear, repeated jury instructions about avoiding outside research and the potential consequences of such actions. He suggests practical steps, such as pretrial questionnaires, signage in deliberation spaces, and even restricting smartphone access during deliberations, as ways to reinforce juror compliance. These measures, he argues, are critical to preserving the integrity of the jury process in a world where technology often tempts jurors to seek information beyond the evidence presented in court.
By calling attention to the evolving challenges posed by modern technology, Gismondi encourages courts to adapt to these realities and reestablish the jury's role as an impartial decision-making body. His insights provide a timely reminder of the need to balance traditional principles with innovative approaches to protect the jury system's foundational fairness.
The Mechanics of Drafting Jury Instructions
A Jur-E Bulletin reader is interested in learning about the mechanics of drafting jury instructions, especially the use of specialized software to select instructions on specific topics and organize them for use during trial. If you have recent experience, please click here to take a brief survey.