Fair Trial Analysis is best known for applying empirical methods to questions of criminal trial fairness, but the same approach can help attorneys evaluate civil liability, settlement risk, and jury exposure.
This report analyzes a hypothetical accidental shooting injury involving a child who finds an unsecured handgun while playing at a friend’s house. Using survey research, Fair Trial Analysis estimated how potential jurors assign blame between the injured child and the supervising parent—and how those judgments change depending on the child’s age.
The results illustrate how empirical jury research can move civil case evaluation beyond intuition. Rather than relying only on legal arguments or anecdotal impressions, attorneys can test how ordinary people respond to the facts that matter most. In this example, respondents were less likely to blame the parent as the child’s age increased, and those individual-level views were translated into estimated jury verdict probabilities.
For civil litigators, this type of analysis can help identify litigation risk, evaluate settlement posture, refine case strategy, and explain uncertainty to clients. It can also show which facts may drive juror decision-making and where additional research would be most useful.
This is a small demonstration study, not a full case-specific litigation analysis. A larger study could be tailored to a particular jurisdiction, legal standard, jury size, damages theory, and factual record. Even so, the report shows the practical value of scientific analysis in civil litigation: measuring how potential jurors understand responsibility before those judgments become verdicts.