The “reptile theory” is an approach used by plaintiffs’ attorneys in personal injury cases, including truck accident litigation, to appeal to jurors’ primitive instincts for safety and survival. The idea is to portray the defendant’s actions as posing a threat to the community, triggering the jurors’ natural desire to protect themselves and their families. This article will examine how plaintiff lawyers use reptile theory in truck accident cases to gain an advantage at trial.
Understanding the Reptile Theory
The reptile theory was first outlined in a 2009 book called “Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution” by lawyer Don Keenan. The philosophy draws on research suggesting humans have a “reptile brain” that controls our innate fight-or-flight response to perceived threats.
By framing the defendant’s conduct as dangerous to the greater community, reptile theory aims to activate jurors’ primitive survival instincts. This provokes visceral reactions that override the rational “human” part of the brain. The goal is for jurors to see things from the plaintiff’s perspective and agree that the defendant’s behavior poses a safety threat that must be stopped.
How It’s Applied in Truck Accident Cases
Plaintiff’s attorneys use specific strategies to implement the reptile theory in truck crash litigation:
- Focusing on safety rules – Painting the trucking company as violating important safety rules shows their disregard for public protection. Plaintiffs emphasize how the carrier’s choice to break rules endangered everyone.
- Vilifying corporate greed – Portraying the trucking company as caring more about profits than safety triggers visceral outrage. Jurors want to punish businesses that put money over people.
- Associating the carrier with danger – Using words like “hazard,” “menace,” and “threat” plants the idea the company is a source of jeopardy the jury must neutralize. Keeping the community “safe” means finding against them.
- Appealing to family values – Urging the jurors to think about the safety of their own families and children encourages them to view the trucking firm as a threat that must be stopped.
- Seeking punitive damages – Punitive damages are meant to punish and deter. Plaintiffs argue huge punitive awards are the only way to protect the public from the trucking company’s willful disregard for lives.
The Reptile Theory in Action
A simplified example shows how plaintiff lawyers deploy these tactics:
“The ABC Trucking Company knew its driver had medical problems making him unfit to operate a 30-ton rig, but they put profits over safety by letting him drive anyway. Because of ABC’s reckless disregard for rules meant to protect us, Ed Jones is now paralyzed. Unless we stop carriers like ABC who gamble with lives to pad their bottom line, other innocent families will suffer the same fate. Your verdict here sends a message – our community will not tolerate profit-hungry companies endangering lives for their own gain.”
This approach is intended to move the jury from dispassionate analysis to an emotional instinctual response. Rather than coolly weighing evidence, jurors connect viscerally with the threat narrative and render a verdict driven by feelings of protectionism.
Speak to a Truck Accident Attorney
If you or a loved one has been harmed in a truck collision caused by a carrier’s dangerous choices, contact our experienced truck accident lawyers at Scarlett Law Group. We utilize advanced trial advocacy techniques, including the reptile theory, to maximize results for injury victims.
Don’t wait – call now at (415) 352-6264 for a free case evaluation.
Or visit our office at 536 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133. Let us protect your rights as we work to make our roads safer for everyone.