We've all seen the farcical movie scene: A lawsuit's plaintiff enters the courtroom in a wheelchair or wearing a cumbersome neck brace, prompting a dramatic objection by the defense. We'd like to think that a savvy defense attorney can convince a jury to look past a plaintiff's injuries and judge the case purely on terms of liability, but is that always true? Are some injuries so horrific or catastrophic that even the most objective jurors may let sympathy creep into their decision-making? Possibly, but not likely, according to some data collected by our colleagues over at VerdictSearch.

The accompanying pie charts, based on cases reported to VerdictSearch, depict results of jury trials separated into two groups: ones in which plaintiffs suffered paralysis or a disfiguring injury and ones in which the injuries were not paralyzing or disfiguring. The results show that a plaintiff's success rate, represented by the orange pie slices, is actually lower in cases involving paralysis or a disfiguring injury. Granted, other variables, such as case type, may factor into the results in the pie charts, but certainly not to great extent. So it becomes apparent that juries are basically deciding liability on its merits, with little or no regard for the severity of the plaintiff's injuries. To check other injury types, use the research platform on VerdictSearch.com.