Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making.

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to ascertain the effects of comparative negligence on damage awards. Participants awarded damages for a mock medical malpractice case in which the level of the plaintiff's negligence was varied. Both experiments showed that damage awards were doubly discounted for partially negligent plaintiffs. Experiment 1 also found that the responses of college students did not differ from those of people who had been called for jury duty. Experiment 2 examined four components of the damage award and showed that the reduction due to the level of the plaintiff's negligence occurred only in damages for bodily harm. Implications for the judicial system are discussed.

Ambivalent Sexism in Context: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Moderate Bias Against Female Drivers

“…That is, because female plaintiffs may be considered partially negligent, the jurors may initially award damages in a lesser amount than they otherwise would. That lesser damages award might then be further discounted by application of comparative negligence rules, thereby further reducing the actual recoverable award (Zickafoose & Bornstein, 1999). Furthermore, in the current study we held plaintiff gender constant; thus it is unclear whether the current findings would hold in an accident with a female plaintiff and a female defendant.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…Psychological researchers have found, however, that fact fi nders intuitively discount their initial award even though they are not supposed to. Both experimental studies and a study using real-world data have found that initial, unadjusted damage awards are lower when the plaintiff bears some responsibility for having caused the harm (Feigenson, Park, & Salovey, 1997 ;Hammitt et al, 1985 ;Zickafoose & Bornstein, 1999 ). From a psychological perspective, it is understandable that the parties' relative responsibility infl uences fact fi nders' underlying gist assessments of the level of appropriate damages (Hans & Reyna, 2011 ).…”

After the Crash: Citizens' Perceptions of Connective-Tissue Injury Lawsuits

“…Although Bornstein (1998) has discovered that mock jurors who are sympathetic to the plaintiff are more likely to find the defendant responsible for injuries in a civil lawsuit, civil jurors report their concerns that some plaintiffs exaggerate or even fabricate their injury claims (Hans, 2000). Experimental research (Feigenson, 2000;Feigenson, Connective-Tissue Injuries 5 Park, & Salovey, 1997;Vidmar, Lee, Cohen & Stewart, 1994;Zickafoose & Bornstein, 1999) confirms that jurors in certain cases show an anti-plaintiff bias, ascribing some responsibility even to plaintiffs who are legally blameless. Mock jury research on comparative negligence has found double discounting, where jurors combine liability judgments and compensatory damage awards in a way that increases the negative effect of a plaintiff's contributory fault (Bornstein, 1998;Feigenson et al, 1997;Greene, 1989;Horowitz & Bordens, 1990;MacCoun, 1993).…”