Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards.

Cather, Corinne; Greene, Edith; Durham, Robert L.

doi:10.1007/bf01499354

Cited by 54 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To normalize the distribution, the damage awards were transformed logarithmically (e.g., Cather, Greene, & Durham, 1996). Two-way ANOVAs (Instruction × Participant) were used to determine the difference between the conditions on the following variables: log of total damage award (for the LEL/separate condition, the total was the sum of the two component awards), the comprehensibility of the instructions, and their diffi culty deciding an award amount.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One explanation is that participants had diffi culty compartmentalizing the different elements of noneconomic damages. Research shows that although mock jurors can some times compartmentalize different elements of damages successfully (Cather et al, 1996;Landsman, Diamond, Dimitropoulos, & Saks, 1998), they often fail to keep different categories of damages straight (see Greene & Bornstein, in press, for a review). For example, their awards for some types of damages (e.g., punitive damages) may be infl uenced by factors (e.g., injury severity) that are relevant only to another type of damages (compensation, in the case of injury severity).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: The view from the bench and the jury box.

Poser¹,

Bornstein²,

McGorty³

2003

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Civil jury instructions are inconsistent in defining what constitutes noneconomic damages, which may include pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life (LEL), among other injury sequelae. This inconsistency has been manifested recently in court decisions that have considered whether LEL should be treated as a separate element of noneconomic damages, distinct from pain and suffering. This paper reviews the case law on this issue and also describes a jury simulation experiment. Mock jurors awarded damages after they received instructions on noneconomic damages in which LEL was ( 1) not identified as a distinct element of damages; (2) defined as an element of damages distinct from pain and suffering, but participants awarded a single amount for noneconomic damages; or (3) defined as a distinct element of damages, and participants awarded separate amounts for LEL and pain and suffering. Instructions about LEL resulted in larger awards, but only when mock jurors also made a separate award for that element of damages.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: The view from the bench and the jury box.

Poser¹,

Bornstein²,

McGorty³

2003

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither Anderson and MacCoun (1999) nor Cather et al (1996) found any effect of defendant egregiousness on compensatory awards when punitive damages were allowed, but we wondered if the defendant's conduct might affect the compensatory judgment in situations in which punitive damages were severely restricted or completely disallowed.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 91%

The effects of limiting punitive damage awards.

Greene¹,

Coon²,

Bornstein³

2001

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to concerns that jury awards in tort cases are excessive and unpredictable, nearly every state legislature has enacted some version of tort reform that is intended to curb extravagant damage awards. One of the most important and controversial reforms involves capping (or limiting) the maximum punitive damage award. We conducted a jury analogue study to assess the impact of this reform. In particular, we examined the possibility that capping punitive awards would cause jurors to inflate their compensatory awards to satisfy their desires to punish the defendant, particularly in situations where the defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible. Relative to a condition in which punitive damages were unlimited, caps on punitive damages did not result in inflation of compensatory awards. However, jurors who had no option to award punitive damages assessed compensatory damages at a significantly higher level than did jurors who had the opportunity to do so. We discuss the policy implications of these findings. THE EFFECTS OF LIMITING PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDSCries for reform first sounded in the 1970s and continue to the present day. The target of this attack is a tort liability system that many people (including insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical executives as well as legislators and judges) perceive as capricious, unpredictable, and out of control (see, e.g., Chookaszian, 1997;Ellis, 1989;Parliman & Shoeman, 1994). Much of the criticism centers on concerns about the perceived excessiveness and unpredictability of jury damage awards. This uncertainty is generally believed to produce inefficiency in terms of businesses' planning for risk-producing activities and in predicting the outcome of a case and negotiating a settlement (Baldus, MacQueen, & Woodworth, 1995).

show abstract

“…Also, jurors consider irrelevant and inappropriate factors while disregarding the factors that they should consider (Anderson & MacCoun, 1999;Cather et al, 1996;Feigenson, Park, & Salovey, 1997;Goodman et al, 1991;Greene, Johns, & Smith, 2001;Hastie et al, 1999;Mott et al, 2000;Robbennolt & Studebaker, 1999). Some jurors have inflated overall awards for plaintiffs whom they believe have lower incomes and greater financial need by inflating awards for pain and suffering (Anderson & MacCoun, 1999;Goodman et al, 1991).…”

Section: Hart Morry and Saks 1997) Research Into How Jurors Award Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of sexual harassment severity and organizational policy and response on juror damage awards

Cass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards.

Cited by 54 publications

References 10 publications

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: The view from the bench and the jury box.

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: The view from the bench and the jury box.

The effects of limiting punitive damage awards.

The effects of sexual harassment severity and organizational policy and response on juror damage awards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About