How a Nurse Witnesses Can Handle “Absolute” Traps During Cross-Examination

Walking into a deposition room or stepping up to the witness stand can be one of the most stressful parts of litigation. Opposing counsel isn’t just asking questions to gather facts — they’re looking for opportunities to lock a witness into a statement that can be used against them later. One of the most common tactics? Forcing the witness to agree with an absolute.

An absolute is an oversimplified rule or principle presented in a way that sounds universally true but strips away the context that actually matters. For example, a lawyer might ask:

“Would you agree that, in order to be reasonable, a contract should protect both parties?”

At first glance, the statement sounds harmless. Many witnesses are tempted to nod along and say, “Yes, of course.” But the problem is that once that agreement is on record, opposing counsel can twist it to fit their narrative — regardless of the unique facts of the case.

The key to preparation is helping witnesses recognize absolutes for what they are and respond with answers that add context. Let’s look at three common types of absolutes and better ways to handle them.

1. Absolute Scenarios

Attorneys often frame hypotheticals in black-and-white terms: “If A, then B.” The trap here is that life, contracts, and patient care don’t work in simple formulas.

Example Question:
“Would you agree that if a contract is based on a false representation, the contract isn’t valid?”

• Weak Answer: “Yes, that would make it invalid.”

• Stronger Answer: “It would depend on what was false and why. The misrepresentation would need to be material to the agreement and reasonably relied upon. Without knowing the specifics, I couldn’t say for certain.”

By pointing out missing details, the witness avoids being boxed into an absolute statement that could later be weaponized.

2. Absolute Language

Absolutes also show up in the words examiners choose. Terms like “always,” “never,” “everyone,” and “no one” are red flags. Abstract values like “safety,” “fairness,” or “legality” can also be framed as if they stand alone, when in reality they are balanced with other considerations.

Example Question:
“Would you agree that all products should be safe, and every design decision should be guided entirely by safety?”

• Weak Answer: “Yes, safety should always come first.”

• Stronger Answer: “I agree that safety, meaning reducing risks, is a key factor. But it’s considered alongside effectiveness, durability, and user experience. The design process requires balancing all of these.”

The improved answer acknowledges safety’s importance without making it the sole, absolute priority.

3. The “Reptile” Approach

Plaintiff attorneys sometimes use what’s called the Reptile strategy — appealing to the jury’s instinct for survival by presenting a simple “rule” for safety and responsibility. The goal is to replace nuanced standards of care with a rigid, absolute principle.

Example Question:
“Doctor, would you agree that a physician should never needlessly endanger a patient?”

• Weak Answer: “Yes, absolutely.”

• Stronger Answer: “I agree that reducing patient risk is important, but treatment decisions also depend on weighing risks against benefits to achieve the best outcomes. That balance varies based on the individual patient and their condition.”

By reframing, the witness keeps the focus on professional judgment rather than an unrealistic, one-size-fits-all rule.

The Takeaway

Cross-examination isn’t just a battle over facts — it’s a battle over language. A skilled examiner will try to hand a witness prepackaged words and concepts. A well-prepared witness knows they don’t have to accept them.

When faced with absolutes, the safest and smartest responses are often:

• “It depends.”

• “Not necessarily.”

• “I would need more context.”

These answers don’t dodge the question — they highlight the reality that important decisions and responsibilities rarely boil down to simplistic absolutes.