When maritime workers suffer injuries on the job, they face a critical decision that could shape their financial future: should they settle their claim or take their case to trial? This choice involves weighing potential rewards against significant risks, and understanding both sides is essential for anyone navigating the complex world of maritime injury law.
The Advantages of Pursuing a Trial in Maritime Injury Case
One of the most compelling reasons injured maritime workers choose trial is the potential for substantially higher compensation. Settlement negotiations often result in conservative offers from insurance companies and employers who aim to minimize their financial exposure. At trial, however, a sympathetic jury might award damages that far exceed initial settlement proposals, particularly when injuries are severe or result from egregious negligence.
Trials also provide a platform for complete vindication and public accountability. When maritime companies cut corners on safety or ignore regulations that protect workers, a trial brings these practices into the light. The formal legal process creates a public record of wrongdoing, which can pressure companies to improve safety standards not just for the plaintiff, but for all workers in the maritime industry.
Furthermore, the trial process allows injured workers to present the full scope of their suffering. Unlike settlement negotiations where discussions focus primarily on numbers and legal technicalities, trials permit plaintiffs to testify about their pain, the impact on their families, and how injuries have altered their life trajectories. This human element can be powerful, and juries often respond with appropriate compensation that reflects the true cost of maritime injuries.
The threat of trial also serves a strategic purpose during negotiations. Maritime employers and their insurers understand that going to court involves uncertainty and expense on their end as well. When plaintiffs demonstrate genuine willingness to proceed to trial, defendants frequently improve their settlement offers substantially. In many cases, the mere preparation for trial results in favorable last-minute settlements that would have been impossible to achieve through earlier negotiations alone.
The Risks and Disadvantages of Trial
Despite these potential benefits, trials carry substantial risks that cannot be ignored. The most significant concern is the uncertainty of outcome. Even strong cases can result in unfavorable verdicts due to unpredictable jury dynamics, procedural complications, or effective defense strategies. A plaintiff who rejects a reasonable settlement offer might ultimately receive nothing, or an amount far below what was previously available.
The time investment required for trial presents another major drawback. While settlements can often be reached within months, trials can take years from initial filing to final verdict. For injured maritime workers facing mounting medical bills and lost wages, this extended timeline can create severe financial hardship. The stress of prolonged litigation also takes a psychological toll, preventing injured workers from achieving closure and moving forward with their lives.
Financial considerations extend beyond just waiting for compensation. Litigation expenses accumulate quickly, including costs for expert witnesses, court fees, document preparation, and depositions. While many maritime injury attorneys work on contingency, meaning they only collect fees if the case succeeds, clients typically remain responsible for these additional costs regardless of outcome. A lengthy trial can result in expenses reaching tens of thousands of dollars.
The adversarial nature of trials can also be emotionally grueling. Plaintiffs must endure cross-examination from defense attorneys trained to challenge their credibility and minimize their injuries. Medical histories become public record, and defense teams may hire investigators to surveil claimants, looking for evidence that contradicts injury claims. This invasive scrutiny can feel like a secondary victimization for workers who simply want fair compensation for legitimate injuries.
Making an Informed Decision
According to industry data, approximately 95% of maritime injury cases settle before reaching trial, suggesting that most parties ultimately find negotiated resolution preferable to courtroom battles. However, this statistic doesn’t diminish the value that trial readiness brings to settlement negotiations, nor does it mean trial is always the wrong choice.
The decision to proceed to trial should be based on several factors: the strength of evidence supporting the claim, the severity of injuries, the adequacy of settlement offers compared to potential trial outcomes, and the plaintiff’s financial ability to withstand the costs and delays of litigation. When employers have clearly violated maritime safety regulations and injuries are catastrophic, the potential upside of trial may justify the risks. Conversely, when liability is questionable or injuries are relatively minor, accepting a reasonable settlement often makes more sense.
“Experienced maritime attorneys play a crucial role in this decision-making process. They can evaluate case strength, estimate likely trial outcomes based on similar cases, and help clients understand what they’re risking by rejecting settlement offers”, says ChopinLaw.com, a maritime lawyer in New Orleans. The best attorneys ensure their clients make informed choices aligned with their individual circumstances, priorities, and risk tolerance.
Ultimately, the choice between settlement and trial represents a highly personal decision with no universally correct answer. By understanding both the potential rewards and significant risks of proceeding to trial, injured maritime workers can make choices that best serve their long-term interests and help them move forward after workplace injuries.
Read Also: Benefits and Drawbacks of Going to Trial in a Personal Injury Case