Case testing for injury attorneys.

Enter the facts of a lead or an active case and see how Charleston juries are likely to treat it — what it’s worth, and where your leverage is.

Research synthesis

Worth

A wide range — $10,000 to $50,000 — because liability is the whole fight here. If a jury blames the store, you’re looking at $50,000. If they split fault (the most common outcome), it’s $10,000. If they blame the shopper, $2,500. The spread isn’t vagueness; it’s a direct function of where the jury lands on fault.

Hinge

The case turns on one fight: was she hurt because the store left a puddle unmarked, or because she was looking at her phone? The phone — cited by 41% of jurors as the pivotal factor — sits in direct tension with the missing wet-floor sign at 38%. Jurors weigh one over the other, and that choice drives the outcome.

Lever

The data points toward the store-fault narrative as the path to the upper end of the range. Jurors who weighted the unmarked hazard over the phone landed at the high outcome; jurors who weighted the phone pulled toward the low end. The phone, cited by 41% of the panel, was the most-frequent reason respondents sided with the defense — the missing wet-floor sign was what drove the store-fault outcomes. The case presents $35K in medicals against the study’s $42K anchor, which is directionally close; the variable that moved outcome in the data was which fact the jury treated as decisive, not the size of the medical file.

Methodology

Source: Charleston Premises Liability Reference Study, n=100, complete, stratified. Weighted medians from Pollfish stratified panel research, geo-filtered to Charleston tri-county adults. The store-fault, about-equal, and shopper-fault medians ($50,000 / $10,000 / $2,500) come from the per-lean breakdown (Q7 by lean). Decisive-fact percentages come from Q6 open-response coding. Panel split: 20.3% mostly-store / 43.2% about-equal / 31.9% mostly-shopper (n=100, stratified). Anchor medical in the study scenario: $42,000; this case presents $35,000 — directionally close.

Venue: Charleston County, plaintiff-favorable. Partisan composition: 61.6% lean-D or strong-D, 38.5% lean-R or strong-R (134 precincts, ~290K adults). More plaintiff-leaning than the tri-county aggregate, though the disputed-liability dynamic limits how much venue lean translates to damages uplift.

Charleston juror baseline (n=100, stratified):

  • 5:1 plaintiff-lean in 50/50 tiebreakers — 33% lean plaintiff vs 6.4% defense; 60.6% need more facts
  • 87.5% accept non-economic damages as appropriate or appropriate-but-modest
  • 50.8% view insurers as unfair to injured people (somewhat or very unfairly combined)

Research synthesis from a Charleston Intelligence subscription, not legal advice. Findings describe what panel respondents would award; they do not predict outcomes in any specific case.

Synthesized in 15,252 ms · in-library scope

Why injury lawyers use Case-Check.

The tool, across case types.

Two more examples. Different scenarios, different match qualities. Same discipline.

Clear-liability MVA

“Rear-ended at a red light by a corporate trucking defendant. Charleston County, GEICO carrier. Client has $48K in medicals, clear liability — police report cites the truck driver.”

Research synthesis
One or more matched studies are at preliminary n (fielding active).

Worth

$120,000 to $200,000, centered around $150,000. That’s what Charleston juror testing on clear-liability rear-end claims against corporate truck drivers has produced — preliminary, but directionally consistent with what these cases run.

Hinge

Liability isn’t the question — nearly nine in ten jurors in the panel testing put fault squarely on the trucking company. What moves this case is injury severity and how well the treatment record reads to a jury.

Lever

On these fact patterns, the dollar outcome tracked with how serious and well-documented the injury presented to the panel. Respondents who read the injury as significant landed at the upper end of the range; thinner or ambiguous medical presentations pulled toward the lower end. The moderate injury severity here is the variable the data flags as outcome-determinative — not the liability fight, which is effectively resolved.

Source: Charleston MVA ID (Truck), preliminary at n=39 of 100 target; figures will refine at study close. Defendant-identity controlled testing is in progress.

Partial-match scenario

“Personal driver rear-ended my client at a red light. State Farm insured. Charleston County. Client has $18K medicals, clear liability.”

Research synthesis
Partial match: the panel scenario tested a corporate trucking defendant; the MVA Personal Driver study is forthcoming.

Worth

$120,000 to $200,000, centered around $150,000. The $18K in medicals here sits below the panel scenario’s anchor, which pulls the realistic outcome toward the lower half of the range — but the range itself reflects where Charleston juries have landed on this fact pattern.

Hinge

Liability isn’t the fight here. What moves this case is injury severity and how well the treatment record supports the damages ask relative to the medical specials.

Lever

On these fact patterns, the dollar outcome tracked with how serious and well-documented the injury read to the panel. The pattern in the data is that non-economic damages did the heavy lifting when medicals were modest — how the injury reads in the file matters more than the bill total.

Source: Charleston MVA ID (Truck), preliminary at n=39 of 100 target. Defendant-identity controlled testing is in progress; current data does not support a directional adjustment between defendant types.

The subscription.

Unlimited Case-Check testing for a flat fee. Test every lead and every case without per-use cost — that’s the whole pitch.

Subscribers also get custom research when Case-Check isn’t enough for a specific question, plus full library access and quarterly State of the Market reports.

Where we publish.

Live in Charleston (Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties). Phoenix, Austin, and Florida launching 2026.

Practice somewhere else? Request your market →

Questions worth asking.

About Case-Check.

What is Case-Check?

Real-time case testing tool for plaintiff PI lawyers. Enter case facts; receive a research card with damages range, defendant identity comparison, venue context, and methodology citations. Subscribers get unlimited queries.

What can I use it for?

Three patterns: testing leads before signing, evaluating signed cases, and ongoing research on any case question.

Is this legal advice?

No. Case-Check produces research synthesis. The lawyer remains the sole decision-maker.

How fast?

15–25 seconds per query.

About Charleston Intelligence.

What is Charleston Intelligence?

The subscription. Unlimited Case-Check testing for a flat fee — test every lead and every case without per-use cost. Custom research is available as an escalation path when Case-Check isn’t enough for a specific question. Subscribers also get full library access and quarterly State of the Market reports.

What's in the library now?

Premises Liability Reference Study. PI Marketing / Brand Recognition. Juror Attitudes Baseline. Tri-County Partisan Composition. Paid Marketing Channel Map. Common Pleas Docket Snapshot. Defendant Identity Effects (in progress). Damages Anchoring (launching). New chapters monthly.

Cost?

Confirmed in conversation. Request access.

Cancel anytime?

Yes.

If my market isn't live?

Charleston is live. Phoenix, Austin, Florida launching 2026. Join the waitlist.

Custom Research — the escalation path.

When does it make sense?

When Case-Check isn’t enough for a specific question — typically when the library doesn’t yet cover your scenario, or when you want a dedicated study fielded on your fact pattern. The tool answers most queries; custom is the escalation.

Confidentiality?

Submit only what you’d put in a public complaint. No PHI. No client identifiers. No privileged communications.

Get started.

Unlimited Case-Check testing for a flat fee. Test every lead and every case without per-use cost.

Try Case-Check → Request access →

Request access

We respond within one business day.

Request received.

We’ll be in touch within one business day.