Evaluating human life using court decisions on damages for pain and suffering

Leiter, Andrea M.; Thöni, Magdalena; Winner, Hannes

doi:10.1016/j.irle.2011.09.002

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For contingent valuation method, Leiter et al (2010) [ 24 ] used face-to-face interviews and elicited people’s willingness to pay to prevent an increase in the risk of dying in a snow avalanche. Similarly, Hoffmann et al (2017) [ 26 ] used a computerized payment card method to estimate the willingness to pay to reduce mortality risk in Chinese population living in four different cities in China.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods

Kharb

Bhandari

Almeida

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a comprehensive set of methodologies that have been used in the literature to give a monetary value to the human impact in a natural disaster setting. Four databases were searched for relevant published and gray literature documents with a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies that quantified the value of a statistical life in a disaster setting or discussed methodologies of estimating value of life were included. Analysis highlighted the complexity and variability of methods and estimations of values of statistical life. No single method to estimate the value of a statistical life is universally agreed upon, although stated preference methods seem to be the preferred approach. The value of one life varies significantly ranging from USD 143,000 to 15 million. While an overwhelming majority of studies concern high-income countries, most disaster casualties are observed in low- and middle-income countries. Data on the human impact of disasters are usually available in disasters databases. However, lost lives are not traditionally translated into monetary terms. Therefore, the full financial cost of disasters has rarely been evaluated. More research is needed to utilize the value of life estimates in order to guide policymakers in preparedness and mitigation policies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods

Kharb

Bhandari

Almeida

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others acknowledge the difficulties in computing them, but argue that the focus should be on developing ways to make these damages more consistent (Avraham ). Despite the controversies regarding noneconomic damages, courts in different legal systems, such as the U.S., western Europe, Canada, and Australia, do award them (Comandè ; Sugarman ; Karapanou and Visscher and Leiter et al ).…”

Section: Previous Research and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Amaral-Garcia¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.

show abstract

“…For the use of QALY's, see Karapanou and Visscher (2010). For a calculation of the value of statistical life using verdicts on damages for pain and suffering from Austria and Germany, see Leiter et al (2012).…”

Section: "To Err Is Human"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?

Amaral-Garcia

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Court are not more likely to receive damages than cases decided by the Civil Section. The probability of receiving compensation is significantly higher among cases involving permanent major/grave injuries. Terms of use: Documents inWith respect to non-economic compensation amounts, there are no significant differences between Administrative and Civil cases. This result is confirmed by matching estimation and simulation exercises. There is evidence of vertical inequality according to the level of harm: cases involving permanent grave injuries are those receiving the highest non-economic damages, followed by permanent major, death, permanent minor and temporary/emotional cases. Differences in compensation awards between Administrative and Civil courts has been one argument widely used against the current separation of jurisdictions in many civil law tradition countries. The results found in this paper do not support this claim.

show abstract

Evaluating human life using court decisions on damages for pain and suffering

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods

Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About