The Psychology of Tort Law

Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making

“…Ensuring that awards are higher in more severe cases, even though each jury only makes a decision in one case and does not see comparable cases, is particularly important in the legal system, because a guiding principle in the tort system is that damage awards should be generally proportionate to the harms done (Sherwin & Bray, ). Plaintiffs deserve to be fairly compensated for their losses (Robbennolt & Hans, ). More numerate participants and participants who had seen meaningful numerical anchors appeared to be able to better put these fairness principles into practice.…”

“…How is the jury to determine an award commensurate with the pain and suffering of a rape? Observers of the Georgia civil trial, and even the victim's lawyer, were surprised by the jury's one billion dollar award in that case, an award that dwarfs typical jury awards in the United States (Cohen, ; Robbennolt & Hans, ). How jurors (and judges) arrive at money damage awards remains something of an enigma, albeit one with significant power to delight or dismay the parties in a lawsuit.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…In contrast, a plaintiff judged to be 49 % responsible would be allowed to recover in all three types of jurisdictions. Fact fi nders also show a tendency to assign responsibility using round numbers (10 %, 20 %, 30 %, and so on) and other psychologically salient numbers (25 % or one-third, for example), suggesting that these decisions refl ect the gist of the fact fi nders' assessment of relative responsibility rather than meticulously precise judgments (Robbennolt & Hans, 2016 ).…”

“…Analyzing damage awards in tort cases reveals some clear patterns (Robbennolt & Hans, 2016 ;Vidmar & Hans, 2007 ). The most signifi cant factor in determining the size of a damage award is the severity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff.…”

“…In addition, tort rules and tort cases connect to core intuitions and beliefs about intentionality, responsibility, causation, compensation, justice and fairness, and appropriate process. Yet, until recently, neither psychologists nor legal scholars have thought comprehensively about the implications of psychological science for tort law and practice (see Robbennolt & Hans, 2016 ;Saks, 1992 ).…”