In catastrophic injury cases, corporate defendants and insurers follow a familiar playbook, animated by an institutional imperative to minimize financial exposure through controlling risk by altering the pool of available jurors to those who have preconceived ( and inappropriate ) beliefs against awarding money damages. Chapter one in the jury selection playbook of defendants is the filing of pre trial motions in limine to preclude voir dire inquiry by plaintiff's counsel into whether jurors can return fair damage awards in substantial amounts and whether individual jurors come to court with beliefs that conflict with the law and controlling jury charges. Settled California law prohibits this strategy.
Every juror brings into the courtroom a set of personal beliefs, biases, and life experiences. Some jurors have deep-seated resistance to awarding substantial non-economic damages for emotional distress, mental suffering, fear, embarrassment and physical pain. Voir dire is the constitutional mechanism which gives counsel the right to question all jurors in order to expose and filter out such latent prejudices.
Whether rooted in life experience, parental upbringing, religious orientation. philosophical outlook or personal ideology, a juror's inability or unwillingness to award full, fair and complete damages as provided by law is illegal and poisons the process of a jury trial. Identifying any such predisposition is critical—both to support valid challenges for cause and to ensure the informed and use of peremptory strikes.
Statutory Mandate: Code of Civil Procedure § 222.5
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 222.5 and binding precedent, trial courts are required to permit liberal and probing voir dire, including examination into a juror's capacity to return a substantial verdict when warranted by the evidence. As a matter of law, this means trial judges have no discretion to exclude voir dire questions that test a juror's willingness—or categorical refusal—to follow the law as it relates to awarding damages. California Code of Civil Procedure section 222.5 requires trial judges to permit "liberal and probing examination" aimed at uncovering bias or prejudice relevant to the case. Binding precedent affirms that inquiry into a juror's ability to return a substantial verdict, when supported by the evidence, falls squarely within the scope of the statute.
Consistent with this mandate, courts recognize that pre-trial questioning properly includes questions designed to expose any bias that may justify a cause or peremptory challenge—including aversions to awarding non-economic damages or opposition to awards of substantial damages.
Key Case Law: Beagle, Fernandez, and Kelly
It has long been established that plaintiffs' attorneys may inform jurors of the precise amount of damages they seek. In Beagle v. Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 172–73, the California Supreme Court affirmed the right to inform juries of the damages amount pled in the complaint, recognizing the practice as both widespread and essential to proper instruction on the permissible scope of awards, noting that "it is difficult to understand how a jury... can be properly instructed" without it.
In Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482, 494, the trial court applied Beagle to hold that reasonable and permissible voir dire examination may include discussion of specific dollar amounts, regardless of whether the subject is first raised by counsel or a juror. Rejecting arguments of improper preconditioning, the Fernandez court endorsed Beagle's core holding: jurors may be informed of the specific damages a plaintiff seeks.
Likewise, Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 671, clarified that disagreements over voir dire content—such as discussing large figures—must be decided by oral argument during voir dire, not preemptively through blanket exclusion via motions in limine.
Equal Opportunity: Voir Dire On Damages Is A Two-Way Street
Defense counsel routinely ask jurors whether they are comfortable returning a zero-damages verdict if the burden of proof is not met by the Plaintiff. The flip side of permissible voir dire by counsel for the plainiff is the right to ask whether jurors can award specific amounts if the evidence so warrants. These inquiries are constitutionally symmetrical and must be treated as such.
As the California Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (Rutter Group, 2020) § 5:312 notes, plaintiffs' attorneys are typically permitted to probe prospective jurors about their capacity to return a large verdict, since some jurors "may be incapable of rendering a $1 million dollar verdict under any circumstances."
The Takeaway for Trial Lawyers and Judges
Efforts to preclude discovery of potential jurors who bring self -imposed damage caps to court are contrary to law and must be rejected. A truly impartial jury includes members open to both extremes—substantial awards or none at all—whose decisions turn solely on the evidentiary record.
Damages
California law not only permits but in fact compels counsel to question jurors about their willingness to award damages required by the evidence using hypothetical amounts from zero to the tens of millions or the hundreds of millions of dollars. When defense counsel seeks to foreclose such questions, they undermine due process protections. Voir dire on damages is a necessary safeguard against covert juror bias. Indeed, in catastrophic injury cases, it may be the only line of defense against concealed prejudices that compromise the integrity of a verdict.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
