The “reptile theory” is a well-recognized approach in personal injury litigation. At its core, it is designed to focus jurors’ attention on broader concepts of safety and community protection, rather than solely on the specific facts of the case. The idea is that by framing conduct in terms of potential risk to the public at large, the jury is encouraged to view their verdict as having an impact beyond just the parties involved.
This strategy is often seen in the form of questions or arguments that highlight general safety rules or emphasize the importance of community well-being. For example, you might hear statements such as, “Safety rules exist to protect everyone,” or “Protecting the community means holding everyone to the same standard.” The goal is to underscore the significance of the case in a wider context.
Elements of the reptile theory can appear at various points in litigation, from the complaint and discovery to trial presentation. These themes may include references to community safety, responsibility, or the idea that certain standards help prevent harm for everyone, not just the parties before the court.
For defense lawyers and adjusters, recognizing when these arguments are being used can help ensure that the focus remains on the facts and legal standards that govern the case. Courts have taken different approaches to these strategies. Some allow broad safety themes, while others limit the scope of such arguments. Awareness and preparation help the defense respond appropriately within the bounds of the law.
The most important thing for the defense is to be attentive to the language and themes that may signal the use of the reptile theory. A collaborative approach among attorneys and adjusters, combined with a thorough understanding of the applicable law, puts the defense in the best position to respond.
Future posts will take a closer look at how these themes may arise in deposition, pretrial motions, and at trial, as well as considerations for all parties in ensuring a fair process.
Tommy Santel is a co-founding partner of Santel | Garner. Tommy is a former government prosecutor. He is a Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31 General Civil Mediator and his practice areas include criminal defense and civil litigation.
This blog is made available by Santel | Garner for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and a general overview of the law, not provide specific legal advice. By using this blog and website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Santel | Garner. This blog and website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.