News Alert
Additional News Alerts
PA House Bill That Would Allow Jury Anchoring Tactics Passes Judiciary and Rules Committees
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 1913, allowing attorneys to propose specific dollar amounts for damages during closing arguments by a 14-12 Committee vote on June 8, 2026. The bill then passed the rules committee on September 8, 2026 and was laid on the table, which means it is expected to receive second consideration by the house floor before receiving a full house vote. While some jurisdictions allow “anchoring” – the practice of specifying a damages amount to a jury – Pennsylvania juries cannot be told of any quantification of damages during a civil trial.
Anchoring is a tool used by attorneys in civil suits to secure high damage awards for their clients. Anchoring endeavors to persuade jurors to rely on a specific reference point, or anchor, when determining damages in a lawsuit. The anchor number attempts to leverage cognitive bias where the first specific value introduced serves as a mental baseline which can disproportionately skew subsequent judgment. Jurisdictions allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to suggest specific, high dollar figures for noneconomic damages tend to see higher average and median verdict values.
In addition to allowing attorneys to propose specific dollar amounts, the Pennsylvania bill gives attorneys the ability to suggest calculation formulas for juries to consider economic and noneconomic damages in civil matters. The bill does provide, however, that an attorney seeking to use this practice must disclose their intent to the judge and opposing counsel prior to closing arguments.
Representative Tim Brennan, who introduced the bill, stated in his memorandum supporting the bill that because Pennsylvania juries presently cannot be told “any quantification of damages during a civil trial . . . the actual value of [economic and noneconomic] damages is left entirely to the jury,” which “can lead to unfair results and is not in keeping with the traditional adversarial practice of American law.”
A vote on the measure has not yet been scheduled, but if approved by the House, it will move to the Pennsylvania State Senate for consideration.
Depending on the outcome of House Bill 1913, defense attorneys may need to be more cognizant of anchoring strategies at trial and fight back with counter-anchoring techniques aimed at introducing alternative and realistic valuations to bring jurors back to reality and prevent inflated jury awards.