The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 125-139

  Wissler, Roselle L ^a   Rector, Katie A ^b   Saks, Michael J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b E11 SSH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST OF ILLNESS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INJURY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; UNITED STATES;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMMUNICATION; COST OF ILLNESS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; UNITED STATES; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 0035319565     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005689230013     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baldus, D., MacQueen, J. C., & Woodworth, G. (1992). Children's models for compensatory damages. Unpublished manuscript.
2. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Bornstein, B. H. & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors' demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 127-147.
4. Broeder, D. W. (1959). The University of Chicago jury project. Nebraska Law Review, 38, 744-760.
5. Cather, C., Greene, E., & Durham, R. (1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189-205.
6. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
7. Chapman, G. B. & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519-540.
8. Diamond, S. S. & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513-563.
9. [Eleventh Circuit] Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Cases. (1990). St. Paul, MN: West.
10. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597-617.
11. [Fifth Circuit] Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Cases. (1999). St. Paul, MN: West.
12. Gilbert, D. T. (1999). What the mind's not. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
13. Greene, E. (1989). On juries and damage awards: The process of decisionmaking. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 225-246.
14. Greene, E., Woody, W. D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187-205.
15. Guinther, J. (1988). The jury in America. New York: Facts on File Publications.
16. Hammitt, J. K., Carroll, S. J., & Relles, D. A. (1985). Tort standards and jury decisions. Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 751-762.
17. Hans, V. P. & Ermann, M. D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151-166.
18. Hans, V. P. & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors' judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review, 26, 85-115.
19. Horowitz, I. A. & Bordens, K. S. (1988). The effects of outlier presence, plaintiff population size, and aggregation of plaintiffs on simulated civil jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 209-239.
20. Horowitz, I. A. & Bordens, K. S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269-285.
21. Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil. (1995). St. Paul, MN: West.
22. Kalven, H., Jr. (1958). The jury, the law, and the personal injury damage award. Ohio State Law Journal, 19, 158-178.
23. Kinney, E. D. & Gronfein, W. P. (1991). Indiana's malpractice system: No-fault by accident? Law and Contemporary Problems, 54, 169-193.
24. Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. J. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 297-342.
25. MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the "deep-pockets" hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121-161.
26. Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
27. Saks, M. J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system - And why not? Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147-1292.
28. Schwartz, V. E. (1994). Comparative negligence (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
29. Shanley, M. G. (1985). Comparative negligence and jury behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30. Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507-536.
31. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
32. Thomas, E. & Parpal, M. (1987). Liability as a function of plaintiff and defendant fault. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 843-857.
33. Vidmar, N., Lee, J., Cohen, E., & Stewart, A. (1994). Damage awards and jurors' responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 149-160.
34. Viscusi, W. K. (1988). Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards? International Review of Law and Economics, 8, 203-220.
35. Wegener, D. T. & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
36. Wilson, T. & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
37. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 125, 387-402.
38. Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., Hart, A. J., Morry, M. M., & Saks, M. J. (1997). Explaining "pain and suffering" awards: The role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 181-205.
39. Wissler, R. L., Kuehn, P. F., & Saks, M. J. (in press). Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
40. Zeisel, H. & Callahan, T. (1963). Split trials and time saving: A statistical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1606-1625.
41. Zickafoose, D. J. & Bornstein, B. H. (1999). Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 577-596.