The US is an outlier in letting juries hand down such massive damages awards. In most other common law countries, the jury only decides which side wins, and damages are up to the judge-and judges generally show a preference for more reasonable amounts.

tl:dr; The amount a Jury awards in damages is not actually what the loser pays.

Juries can award w/e they want but the judge still has discretion in reducing the damages (ex. one of McDonalds hot coffee incidents [1]).

Not a foreman, but I believe juries don't get instructed as to what the maximum amount they can legally award is and so the judge to then reduce it. (ex. Depp vs Heard [2])

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v._Heard

Such a system likely still results in higher damages payouts - even after the judge has reduced the jury’s amount - than leaving the issue of damages entirely up to the judge would; which may go some way to explaining why average damages awards (even if we only consider the final amounts after all appeals are finalised) are significantly higher in the US than in other common law countries.

>”Looks like you have an issue with the jury system itself.”

Wanting to reform an aspect of the jury system does not invalidate it as a whole.