One of the more difficult social responsibilities that we have is serving on a jury.  In addition to the obvious inconvenience and time away from family and work responsibilities, jurors have the difficult task of determining who to believe in a situation where completely contradictory explanations of an incident are being offered.  

At most medical malpractice and personal injury trials, the party initiating the lawsuit (the plaintiff) is claiming they sustained an injury due to the conduct of the person that they are suing (the defendant)-- who generally denies all accusations of wrongdoing.

For a jury who may be hearing weeks worth of testimony from witnesses from both sides, the task of selecting the relevant information and applying it to the particular circumstance can be incredibly difficult--- particularly when both sides to a trial offer reasonable explanations for their positions.

A jury in Pennsylvania was able to sort through the differing opinions presenting in a trial involving the development of pressure sores during an admission to a nursing home.  The lawsuit was initiated by the family of a deceased woman who allegedly developed pressure sores during her admission to The Commons at Squirrel Hill.  In the face of arguments presented by the nursing home that the woman's pressure sores developed prior to her admission, the jury awarded the decedent's family $300,000 in damages.

Related:

$300,000 award set in Squirrel Hill bed-sores case Pittsburgh Tribune-Review January 31, 2012

Are bed sores acquired during a nursing home admission an indication of poor care?

ManorCare Named In Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Patient Develops Pressure Sores During Nursing Home Admission

Family Sues Illinois Nursing Home Over Relative's Death Related To Bed Sores & Infection