Going to Trial vs Settlement – Making the Right Choice for Your Case

The decision between accepting a settlement and going to trial is one of the most important you’ll face in your personal injury case. It’s a decision that requires careful analysis of multiple factors, from the strength of your case to your personal circumstances and risk tolerance. There’s no universally right answer; what’s best depends entirely on your specific situation.

At Brooks & Baez, we’ve taken hundreds of cases to trial and negotiated thousands of settlements. We’ve seen brilliant trial victories that changed clients’ lives and strategic settlements that provided exactly what clients needed. Understanding the pros and cons of each path, and the factors that should guide your decision, is crucial for making the choice that’s right for you.

Let’s start with a fundamental truth: about ninety-five percent of personal injury cases settle before trial. This isn’t because trials are bad or settlements are always better. It’s because both sides usually recognize the case’s value range and find a number both can accept rather than risk trial uncertainty. But those five percent that go to trial often involve the most serious injuries, clearest liability, or most unreasonable parties.

Settlement offers certainty in an uncertain world. When you accept a settlement, you know exactly what you’re getting and when. There’s no risk of a defense verdict leaving you with nothing. There’s no chance of contributory negligence findings barring recovery entirely. You avoid the stress of trial testimony and cross-examination. The money typically comes within weeks rather than potentially years if appeals follow trial.

But settlements also mean compromise. You’re accepting less than you might win at trial in exchange for eliminating risk. You’re giving up the chance for a jury to fully value your injuries and hold defendants publicly accountable. Once you sign that release, your case is over forever, regardless of future complications or discovered injuries.

Trial offers the possibility of complete justice. A jury might award every penny of your damages plus punitive damages for egregious conduct. The defendant must publicly account for their negligence. Verdicts can exceed insurance policy limits, creating personal liability for defendants. The mere willingness to try cases changes settlement dynamics in future cases.

But trials also carry significant risks. Juries are unpredictable, and even strong cases can result in defense verdicts. Virginia’s contributory negligence law means a finding that you were even one percent at fault results in zero recovery. Trials are expensive, stressful, and time-consuming. Appeals can delay payment for years even after winning verdicts.

The strength of liability evidence is perhaps the most important factor in the trial versus settlement decision. Clear liability with multiple witnesses, video evidence, or drunk driving might justify trial risk. Disputed liability with conflicting stories and ambiguous evidence might counsel toward accepting reasonable settlements rather than risking zero recovery.

Contributory negligence risk in Virginia cannot be overstated. If there’s any credible argument you contributed to your injuries, settlement might be wise. We’ve seen cases with ninety-nine percent defendant fault result in defense verdicts because juries found one percent plaintiff fault. This harsh law makes trial particularly risky for any case with potential plaintiff fault.

The severity of injuries affects the calculation. Catastrophic injuries with clear ongoing effects might justify trial risk because the potential recovery difference is substantial. Minor injuries with full recovery might not warrant trial expense and risk when settlement offers approach likely trial outcomes.

Insurance coverage limits often cap practical recovery regardless of verdict. If defendants have $100,000 policies and no significant assets, winning a million-dollar verdict might be meaningless. Understanding available coverage and defendant assets is crucial for evaluating whether trial offers meaningful benefit over settlement.

Venue and jury pool characteristics matter enormously. Richmond city juries typically award more than suburban counties. Some jurisdictions are notoriously conservative with damage awards. Knowing your likely jury pool helps evaluate trial risk. Our experience trying cases throughout central Virginia provides valuable insight into venue-specific considerations.

Your personal circumstances affect the decision. Can you afford to wait potentially years for trial and appeals? Can you handle the stress of testimony and cross-examination? Do you need money now for medical treatment or basic living expenses? These practical considerations often outweigh pure case value analysis.

The defendant’s identity influences strategy. Individual defendants might be sympathetic to juries despite clear negligence. Corporate defendants often generate jury antipathy that increases verdicts. Government entities have immunity caps that limit recovery regardless of verdicts. Drunk drivers typically generate jury anger that maximizes awards.

Settlement timing affects value. Early settlements before full discovery might be discounted for unknown information. Settlements on the courthouse steps after extensive preparation often maximize value. But waiting too long can result in withdrawn offers if defendants gain confidence or plaintiff problems emerge.

The mediation process has revolutionized settlement negotiations. Skilled mediators help parties find common ground and overcome negotiation obstacles. Mediation allows exploration of creative solutions like structured settlements, confidentiality agreements, or non-monetary terms. Most larger cases go through mediation before trial.

Trial preparation costs affect the economic analysis. Expert witnesses, depositions, exhibits, and trial technology can cost tens of thousands in complex cases. These costs come off the top of any recovery. If a settlement offer approaches likely trial verdict minus costs, settlement might net more than trial.

Your credibility as a witness is crucial for trial success. Honest, likeable plaintiffs who don’t exaggerate injuries receive better verdicts. If you have credibility issues, prior claims, or social media contradicting injuries, settlement might be preferable to hostile cross-examination.

The quality of opposing counsel matters. Some defense attorneys are settlement-oriented and make reasonable offers. Others are warriors who force trials regardless of merit. Knowing opposing counsel’s tendencies and abilities helps evaluate whether reasonable settlement is possible or trial is inevitable.

Emotional factors shouldn’t be ignored. Some clients need their day in court for psychological closure. Others find trial testimony about traumatic events retraumatizing. The public nature of trial, with injuries and personal details exposed, bothers some people. Understanding your emotional needs is as important as economic analysis.

Punitive damages possibility might justify trial risk. If defendant conduct was particularly egregious, punitive damages could substantially increase recovery beyond settlement offers. But punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of willful and wanton conduct, a high standard rarely met.

The appeals process extends uncertainty beyond trial. Even winning verdicts can be appealed, delaying payment and risking reversal. Some defendants routinely appeal adverse verdicts as a pressure tactic. Understanding post-trial procedures and risks is essential for informed decision-making.

Structured settlements offer middle ground between lump sum settlements and trial. These provide guaranteed future payments, often tax-free, that might exceed lump sum values. But they lack flexibility and depend on annuity company solvency. For some clients, particularly those with future medical needs, structures provide security.

High-low agreements can limit trial risk while preserving upside potential. Parties agree the plaintiff receives a minimum amount regardless of verdict but caps recovery at a maximum. This eliminates the risk of zero recovery while allowing for substantial verdicts. These agreements are particularly useful in strong liability cases with difficult damages.

Summary jury trials and binding arbitration offer alternatives to traditional trials. These proceedings are typically faster and less expensive than full trials. But they often limit discovery and appeal rights. Understanding alternative dispute resolution options expands settlement possibilities.

The client’s role in decision-making is paramount. Attorneys provide advice based on experience and case analysis, but clients make final decisions. It’s your case, your injuries, and your life affected by the outcome. Good attorneys explain options thoroughly and respect client decisions even when disagreeing.

Case examples illustrate the complexity of these decisions. We recently had a clear liability case with a client suffering moderate injuries. The insurance company offered $150,000. We believed a jury would award $200,000 to $250,000. But trial would cost $30,000 and risk contributory negligence findings. The client, needing immediate funds for medical treatment, wisely accepted the settlement.

Conversely, another client with catastrophic injuries rejected a $500,000 settlement offer when the defendant had $2 million coverage. Despite some contributory negligence risk, we tried the case and won $1.8 million. The additional recovery transformed the client’s ability to afford lifetime care.

Sometimes principle matters more than money. A client sexually assaulted by a healthcare provider rejected reasonable settlement offers to hold the provider publicly accountable. The trial verdict wasn’t much more than settlement offers, but the public vindication and provider’s loss of license provided justice money couldn’t buy.

The insurance company’s conduct affects decisions. Bad faith claim handling, including unreasonable delays or denials, might justify trial to send a message. Punitive damages for bad faith can exceed compensatory damages. Insurance companies that negotiate reasonably deserve different treatment than those that don’t.

Time pressure affects both sides differently. Plaintiffs often need money quickly for medical treatment and living expenses. Defendants and insurers typically benefit from delay. Understanding each side’s pressure points helps evaluate when to push for trial versus when to accept settlements.

The possibility of partial settlements complicates multi-defendant cases. Settling with some defendants while trying cases against others can provide immediate funds while preserving upside potential. But settlements might reduce remaining defendants’ liability or provide them ammunition for trial.

Statistical analysis helps inform decisions. Average verdicts for similar injuries in your venue provide benchmarks. But every case is unique, and averages hide wide variations. A median might be more useful than a mean skewed by outlier verdicts. Understanding statistical limitations prevents over-reliance on data.

The finality of settlement deserves emphasis. Once you sign a release, your case is over forever. No matter what happens, whether injuries worsen, treatment fails, or hidden damages emerge, you cannot reopen your claim. This finality makes thorough evaluation essential before accepting any settlement.

For most clients, the decision comes down to risk tolerance and life circumstances. Are you willing to risk everything for the chance of more? Can you afford to wait? Do you need certainty or can you handle uncertainty? These personal factors matter as much as legal analysis.

At Brooks & Baez, we prepare every case for trial while constantly evaluating settlement opportunities. This dual-track approach maximizes leverage and options. Insurance companies know we’ll try cases, which improves settlement offers. But we also recognize when settlement serves clients’ best interests.

The decision between settlement and trial is deeply personal and case-specific. There’s no shame in accepting a reasonable settlement that meets your needs. There’s no fault in taking a strong case to trial for full justice. The key is making an informed decision based on thorough analysis and honest advice.

Facing the settlement versus trial decision? Brooks & Baez provides honest analysis and aggressive representation either path you choose. Call (804) 570-7473 or email [email protected].