Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary?

Greene, Edith; Woody, William Douglas; Winter, Ryan J.

doi:10.1023/a:1005458919344

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies have shown that jurors award damages appropriately (Cather et al, 1996;Greene & Loftus, 1998;Greene, Woody, & Winter, 2000;Wissler, Evans, Hart, Morry, & Saks, 1997). When awarding compensatory damages to a plaintiff in personal injury, automobile negligence, medical malpractice, and insurance bad faith cases, jurors appropriately consider the plaintiff's pain and suffering (Mott, Hans, & Simpson, 2000), injury severity (Mott et al, 2000;Robbennolt & Studebaker, 1999;Wissler et al, 1997), and injury duration (Wissler et al, 1997).…”

Section: Harassment Severity and Damage Awardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case

Cass

Levett²

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community members reporting for jury duty (N = 128) read a sexual harassment trial summary in which harassment severity and the organization's sexual harassment policy and response were manipulated. Jurors who read the severe harassment scenario were more likely to agree that the plaintiff had suffered and should be compensated for her suffering and that the organization should be punished than were jurors who read the mild harassment scenario. When the organization had and enforced a sexual harassment policy, jurors believed that the plaintiff had suffered little and the organization should not be punished compared with conditions in which the organization did not have an enforced sexual harassment policy. Harassment severity influenced jurors' compensatory awards, and organizational behavior influenced jurors' punitive awards. These results have implications for plaintiffs, who must decide whether to claim specific or garden-variety damages; organizations, which could create or modify sexual harassment policy to limit damages; and trial lawyers, who could tailor arguments to maximize or minimize awards.

show abstract

Section: Harassment Severity and Damage Awardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case

Cass

Levett²

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As compensatory damages are evaluated according to the seriousness of each plaintiff's injuries and are designed to furnish compensation for personal losses (Greene, Woody, & Winter, 2000), this research focuses on innovations that may assist jurors in the decision-making process associated with compensatory awards. Specifically, this study investigates the effectiveness of bottom-line expert witness summaries and note-taking as procedures that can enhance juror competence and performance when awarding compensatory damages.…”

Section: Improving Juror Cognitive Performance Via Procedural Innovatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compensatory damages are awarded to recompense the plaintiff for economic and non-economic costs. In contrast, in a small percentage of trials, punitive damages are awarded based on the blameworthiness and malevolence of the defendant's behaviour (Greene et al, 2000). In this case, the trial was divided into two parts: the first concerning liability, followed by evidence on compensatory damages.…”

Section: Trial Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation

ForsterLee

Kent

Horowitz

2005

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two hundred seventy nine individuals served as mock jury members in a civil trial that involved multiple plaintiffs and several expert witnesses. Juries were or were not provided with written summary statements of the testimony of expert scientific witnesses, and were either permitted or not permitted to take notes. The results showed that the combination of summary statements and notetaking had a synergistic effect on the quality of decision-making. Mock juries enabled by both cognitive aids provided significantly higher awards, as compared to mock juries aided by one or none of the jury-aids, to the most severely injured plaintiffs without increasing compensation for those less worthy. Aided mock juries also recalled more probative evidence than non-aided jurors, and were more satisfied with the efficacy of their deliberations.

show abstract

“…At least in this domain, jurors generally apply their instructions as the law anticipates. 2 In another study, Greene, Woody, and Winter (2000) assessed whether jurors appropriately apply instructions related to punitive damages considerations. In particular, jurors are to use evidence related to the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct and the defendant's wealth only to gauge the amount of punitive damages and are not to use this information to determine compensatory damages.…”

Section: Application Of Substantive Instructions Related To Damage Awmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mock jurors in the Greene, Woody, and Winter (2000) study read summaries of three cases: automobile negligence, products liability, and medical malpractice. In each case, the conduct of the defendant (mildly reprehensible vs. highly reprehensible) and the defendant's wealth (moderately wealthy vs. very wealthy) were manipulated.…”

Section: Application Of Substantive Instructions Related To Damage Awmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards.

Greene

Bornstein

2000

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous-allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors' decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level.I was under the impression we'd have guidelines. I feel we were thrown in a box and had to come out with a number. (Anonymous juror quoted by Vidmar, 1995, p. 243) A juror serving in a North Carolina medical malpractice case expressed this sentiment. She and fellow jurors heard evidence at trial that a 28-year-old plaintiff suffered a peritoneal infection and permanent brain injury after undergoing cesarean surgery. During the trial, the jury was provided with evidence of medical bills resulting from her injury that amounted to several thousands of dollars. The defense attorney argued vehemently that the plaintiffs injuries were not caused by the defendant's actions but then said any award to which the plaintiff was entitled should be small because the hospital and doctors had already paid her medical expenses. In his charge to the jury on damages, the judge informed the group that they should consider the amount of compensation the plaintiff should have as well as an amount for the husband's claim of loss of consortium. He further cautioned them to determine an award based solely on the evidence and instructed them that the amount should be fair, just, and reasonable and not determined by sympathy.The jury deliberated for 3.5 hr, after which they returned a verdict of $850,000 along with strongly worded complaints about the ambiguity involved in their assigned task. Several members of the jury apparently felt that doing their duty "was difficult for all of us."

show abstract

Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary?

Cited by 22 publications

References 13 publications

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case

The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation

Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About