Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages of jurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.     

Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages

Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.     

Juries and Unpredictability in Products Liability Damage Awards

The size and variability of jury damage awards in tort cases has been a contentious issue for over a decade. Nevertheless, there has been little empirical work addressing the relationship between the size of jury awards to products liability victims and their compensable losses. This paper examines this relationship using a sample of California cases. A compensatory model of damages based on plaintiff, injury, and case characteristics explains a large proportion of the variance in damage awards suggesting that juries rely heavily on monetary and non-monetary loss estimates in determining damages. The evidence argues against charges of unpredictability, and indicates undercompensation on average.     

Compensating Plaintiffs and Punishing Defendants: Is Bifurcation Necessary?

Critics of the civil jury have proposed several procedural reforms to address the concern that damage awards are capricious and unpredictable. One such reform is the bifurcation or separation of various phases of a trial that involves multiple claims for damages. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damages phases of a civil tort trial. We manipulated the wealth of the defendant and the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct (both sets of evidence theoretically related to punitive but not to compensatory damages) across three cases in a jury analog study. We wondered whether jurors would misuse the punitive damages evidence in fixing compensatory damages and whether bifurcation would effectively undo this practice. Our findings indicated that mock jurors did not improperly consider punitive damages evidence in their decisions about compensation. Moreover, bifurcation had the unexpected effect of augmenting punitive damage awards. These findings raise questions about the merits of bifurcation in cases that involve multiple claims for damages.     

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

A criticism of the civil jury is that jurors' decisions about damages are capricious and arbitrary. In particular, critics point to the skyrocketing nature of punitive damage assessments as evidence of a system run amok. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence jurors' decisions about compensatory and punitive awards. We assess whether, as the law intends, jurors' decisions about compensation are influenced by the severity of the plaintiff's injury but not by the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, and whether assessments of punitive damages are related to the defendant's conduct but not to the plaintiff's injury. Across three cases, mock jurors generally utilized relevant information and ignored irrelevant factors in their decisions about damages. Results are discussed in terms of the extent to which juror decision making comports with legal doctrine.     

The Effects of Limiting Punitive Damage Awards

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.     

An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials

An investigation of the impact of innovations in civil trial procedure manipulated trial structure (unitary vs. separated trial issues), order of decisions (liability or causation first), and number of decisions made (one to four) in a simulated toxic tort trial. Juries gave verdicts and damage awards. Recordings were made of the juries' deliberations. The results showed significantly more verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in unitary trials (causation, liability, and damages heard together) as opposed to separated trials. However, average damage awards were higher in the separated than in the unitary trial conditions. Juries assigned more responsibility to the defendant in the unitary trial. Juries also used the totality of the evidence to decide all issues, especially general causation, which contained the most ambiguous testimony. The performance of these simulated juries in complex litigation was discussed in terms of group and individual cognitive factors.     

More than the sum of its parts? Itemizing impairment in civil cases

Purpose. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether making multiple damage awards influenced civil mock jurors' assessments of those damage awards. Specifically, how does making one decision for pain and suffering damage awards versus two decisions (one for mental pain and suffering and physical pain and suffering) versus four decisions (one for loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical disability/impairment) influence overall non‐economic damage awards. Methods. One hundred twenty undergraduates from a psychology participant pool read a case vignette that included information regarding four types of injuries that the plaintiff endured: loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical disability/impairment. Participants were randomly assigned to render either one award for pain and suffering, two awards (one for physical pain and suffering and one for mental pain and suffering), or four awards (one for each pain and suffering element). Results. Results indicated that participants who rendered four awards provided significantly higher overall non‐economic damage awards than participants who provided one overall award. The variability of damage awards also increased as the number of damage awards increased. Conclusions. Itemizing non‐economic damage awards into distinct injury categories can lead to an increase in overall non‐economic awards. Members of the legal arena should be cautioned against itemizing damages to prevent variability in non‐economic awards.     

Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages. In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages in one of three conditions: (a) compensatory damages only, (b) punitive damages for the plaintiff, or (c) punitive damages for the state treasury. Results suggest that jurors who did not have the option to award punitive damages inflated compensatory damages via pain and suffering awards. Jurors were marginally more likely to award punitive damages when the plaintiff was the recipient. Mock jurors in Study 2 read a similar case summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages. Two factors were varied in Study 2: (a) egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, and (b) the recipient of any punitive damages (the plaintiff vs. a consortium of state funds). Jurors were more likely to award punitive damages when the defendant's conduct was more egregious and when the plaintiff was the recipient. The results suggest leakage between compensatory and punitive damage judgments, contrary to the law's mandate.     

Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards

Two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards. Jury-eligible citizens were shown a videotaped summary of an environmental damage lawsuit and told that the defendant had already paid compensatory damages. They were asked to judge liability for punitive damages and, if damages were to be assessed, to assign a dollar award. Three independent variables were manipulated in the case materials: the dollar amounts that were explicitly requested by the plaintiffs in their closing arguments to the jury, the geographical location of the defendant corporation, and the location of the lead plaintiff. Consistent with prior findings of anchor effects on judgments, we found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, the higher the awards. We also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs, while the location of the defendant company did not have reliable effects on the awards. The implications of these results for procedures in civil trials and for theories of juror decision making are discussed.     

Conduct and its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments

Jurors in negligence cases are supposed to judge a defendant by the reasonableness of his or her conduct and not by the consequences of that conduct. But several studies have shown that a cognitive heuristic known as hindsight bias can skew post hoc judgments of some prior behavior. Thus, jurors who must evaluate the actions of a defendant may be influenced inappropriately by the consequences of those actions. A complementary problem arises when jurors must evaluate the injuries incurred by the plaintiff. Here, jurors' knowledge about the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct can proactively influence their assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and determination of damages. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of two procedural techniques intended to reduce or eliminate the impact of hindsight bias in negligence cases—multiple admonitions from a judge about the proper use of evidence—and bifurcation (actually withholding irrelevant evidence from jurors). We presented a re-enacted automobile negligence trial to 355 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, varied the evidence and instructions that they heard, and measured liability judgments and damage awards from individual jurors both before and after deliberating, and from juries. Results showed that admonitions were generally ineffective in guiding jurors to the proper use of evidence but that bifurcation was relatively more effective. Deliberations had no curative effect on jurors' misapplication of evidence.     

The Human Rights Review Tribunal and the rights of health and disability consumers in New Zealand

In New Zealand where there is a statutory bar on the right to sue for compensatory damages arising out of personal injury, and therefore injury arising out of negligent health care, the Human Rights Review Tribunal, in certain circumstances, provides relief for people who are aggrieved by the care they have received from a provider of a health or disability service. That relief may range from a declaration that the provider has breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights to awards of compensatory and exemplary damages. The article explores the use of this tribunal by the Director of Proceedings of the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner in holding providers of health and disability services accountable and obtaining relief for consumers and their families.     

The Impact of Psychological Injuries on Sexual Harassment Determinations

Although a plethora of studies focus on jury decision making in sexual harassment cases, few studies examine damage award assessments in such suits, and even fewer explore the impact of psychological injury on jurors’ liability and damage award assessments. In the present study, 342 undergraduates read a hostile environment sexual harassment case that manipulated the plaintiff’s psychological injury level (severe vs. mild vs. control) to investigate whether males and females made different damage decisions. Males using a reasonable person standard found more liability as the severity of the plaintiff’s psychological injury increased. However, males using a reasonable woman standard found less liability with the addition of any psychological injury information. Similarly, for mild and severe injuries, males using the reasonable woman standard awarded lower damages than males using the reasonable person standard. Females tended to find more harassment than males, but psychological injury and legal standard had little impact on females’ legal decisions. We discuss these findings in light of the positive relationship often observed between the plaintiff’s injury severity level and pro-plaintiff verdicts.     

The effects of outlier presence,plaintiff population size,and aggregation of plaintiffs on simulated civil jury decisions

An experiment was performed to determine the effects of the size of the plaintiff population, the presence or absence of an outlier, defined as a plaintiff whose injuries were significantly more severe than other plaintiffs, and whether plaintiffs were tried individually or were aggregated in a group. Sixty-six person juries were assigned to one of eleven experimental conditions, listened to a 4-h toxic tort tria, and after deliberating, delivered verdicts on liability, and damage awards. The verdicts were increased significantly by the presence of an outlier and by an increase in the plaintiff population. While the punitive awards were higher in the outlier condition, there was also a tendency for juries to find the company not liable.The meaning of the above findings, as well as the fact that juries exhibited great variability in their verdicts was discussed. Evidence as to the decision-making process of the juries was also gathered and discussed.This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SES 860 9892 and by a University of Toledo College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Development Grant. Special thanks to members of the Toledo Repertoire Theatre and University of Toledo Theatre Department for their assistance in preparing the materials for this study.     

Lay Juries, Professional Arbitrators, and the Arbitrator Selection Hypothesis

Do civil juries follow the broad dictates of the law? For example,do those plaintiffs who suffer greater damages receive greaterawards? Are juries consistent? Do juries empty deep pockets?In many states automobile accidents are first tried by a professionalarbitrator and then by a jury if one of the litigants is dissatisfiedwith the outcome. How do the decisions made by professionalarbitrators compare to the decisions made by juries? This articleseeks to answer these questions by first developing a modelof arbitrator selection and then undertaking an empirical studyof 380 automobile accident cases that went through both an arbitrationand a jury trial.     

Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.     

A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages

A study was conducted to investigate civil juries' decisions concerning defendants' liability for punitive damages in tort cases. A total of 121 six-member mock juries composed of jury-service-eligible citizens were presented summaries of previously decided cases and given a comprehensive instruction on the defendant's liability for punitive damages. Most of the mock juries decided that the consideration of punitive damages was warranted, although appellate and trial judges had concluded that they were not warranted. The tendency to find the defendant liable was partly due to jurors' failure systematically to consider the full set of legally necessary conditions for the verdicts they rendered. Individual differences in the jurors' backgrounds were not strongly related to their verdicts; income and ethnicity were weakly related to judgments. The social processes in deliberation on civil juries were similar to the dynamics of deliberation that have been observed in criminal juries.     

A critique of the motivational analysis in wrongful conception cases

Most states now recognize a tort cause of action for wrongful conception, typically resulting from a failed sterilization. States differ, however, in determining whether damages should be awarded for child-rearing expenses and what factors juries can consider in setting such damage awards. This Note argues that one commonly used factor, the parents' motivation for selecting sterilization, is irrelevant and leads to inequitable results. Since the right to use contraception is constitutionally protected, the choice to sterilize in order to avoid financial burdens associated with child-rearing should not be given preferential treatment to sterilizations motivated by concerns of genetic defects or for the mother's health.