Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 315-341

  Robbennolt, Jennifer K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Damage awards; Judges; Juror decision making

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CONFERENCE PAPER; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; DEPRESSION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION; LAW; MALE; NAUSEA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; VOMITING; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036615879     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015376421813     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (72)

1. Ala. Code § 6-11-21 (1994).
2. Anderson, M. C., & MacCoun, R. J. (1999). Goal conflict in juror assessments of compensatory and punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 313-330.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996).
5. Browning-Ferris Ind. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 109 S. Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989).
6. 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.
7. Clermont, K. M., & Eisenberg, T. (1992). Trial by jury or judge: Transcending empiricism. Cornell Law Review, 77, 1124-1177.
8. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-40 (West 1987).
9. Crump, D. (1998). Evidence, economics, and ethics: What information should jurors be given to determine the amount of a punitive-damage award? Maryland Law Review, 57, 174-235.
10. Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703-718.
11. Development in the Law. (1997). Jury determination of punitive damages. Harvard Law Review, 110, 1513-1536.
12. Diamond, S. S., Saks, M. J., & Landsman, S. (1998). Jurors judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 301-325.
13. Eisenberg, T., La Fountain, N., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M. T. (2002). Juries, judges, and punitive damages: An empirical study. Cornell Law Review.
14. Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Punitive awards after BMW, a new capping system, and the reported opinion bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 387-425.
15. Feigenson, N. R. (1998). Sympathy and legal judgment: A psychological analysis. Tennessee Law Review, 65, 1-78.
16. Galanter, M., & Luban, D. (1993). Poetic justice: Punitive damages and legal pluralism. American University Law Review, 42, 1393-1463.
17. Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1991). Jurors' attitudes about civil litigation and the size of damage awards. American University Law Review, 40, 805-820.
18. Greene, E., Woody, W. D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187-205.
19. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
20. Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1994). Perceptions of civil justice: The litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behavioral Science and the Law, 12, 181-196.
21. 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.
22. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
23. Hastie, R., & Viscusi, W. K. (2001). What juries can't do well: The jury's performance as a risk manager. Arizona Law Review, 40, 901-921.
24. Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415, 114 S. Ct. 2331, 129 L.Ed.2d 336 (1994).
25. Howe, E. S., & Loftus, T. C. (1992). Integration of intention and outcome information by students and circuit court judges: Design economy and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 102-116.
26. Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49-86.
27. Kalven, H. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055-1074.
28. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
29. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3701 (1994).
30. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
31. Karlovac, M., & Darley, J. M. (1988). Attribution of responsibility for accidents: A negligence law analogy. Social Cognition, 6, 287-318.
32. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. Bristol, PA: Hemisphreme.
33. Knight, C. J. (1995). State-law punitive damage schemes and the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in the federal courts. Review of Litigation, 14, 657-705.
34. Koenig, T., & Rustad, M. (1993). The quiet revolution revisited: An empirical study of the impact of state tort reform of punitive damages in products liability. Justice System Journal, 16, 21-44.
35. Landsman, S., Diamond, S. 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, 1998, 297-342.
36. Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effects of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Science and the Law, 12, 113-126.
37. Lempert, R. (1999). Juries, hindsight, and punitive damage awards: Failures of a social science case for change. DePaul Law Review, 48, 867-894.
38. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278-292). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
39. 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.
40. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.20.1(a) (West Supp. 1997).
41. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1993).
42. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.675 (1997).
43. Mogin, P. (1998). Why judges, not juries, should set punitive damages. University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 179-210.
44. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
45. Ostrom, B. J., Rottman, D. B., & Goerdt, J. A. (1996). A step above anecdote: A profile of the civil jury in the 1990s. Judicature, 79, 233-241.
46. Owen, D. G. (1994). A punitive damages overview: Functions, problems, and reform. Villanova Law Review, 39, 363-413.
47. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1306, 111 S. Ct. 1032, 112 L.Ed.2d 1172 (1991).
48. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
49. Peterson, M. A. (1984). Compensation of injuries: Civil jury verdicts in Cook County. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, The Institute for Civil Justice.
50. Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (1998). Punitive damages: An economic analysis. Harvard Law Review, 111, 869-962.
51. Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Determining Punitive Damages: Empirical Insights and Implications for Reform. Buffalo Law Review, 50, 103-203.
52. Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of "responsibility": A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575-2609.
53. Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353-373.
54. Rustad, M. (1992). In defense of punitive damages in products liability: Testing tort anecdotes with empirical data. Iowa Law Review, 78, 1-88.
55. Rustad, M. (1998). Unraveling punitive damages: Current data and further inquiry. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 15-69.
56. Saks, M. J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system - and why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147-1289.
57. Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 243-256.
58. Sand, L. B., Siffert, J. S., Loughlin, W. P., & Reiss, S. A. (1996). Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Vol. 4). New York: Mathew Bender.
59. Scheiner, A. H. (1991). Judicial assessment of punitive damages, the Seventh Amendment, and the politics of jury power. Columbia Law Review, 91, 142-226.
60. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: The severity shift. Columbia Law Review, 100, 1139-1175.
61. Sharkey, L. M. (1996). Judge or jury: Who should assess punitive damages? University of Cincinatti Law Review, 64, 1089-1139.
62. Simpson, J. T. (1996). Discovery of net worth in bifurcated punitive damages cases: A suggested approach after Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel. Southern Texas Law Review, 37, 193-229.
63. Slain, A. J., Penrod, S., Garbin, C. P., & Stolle, D. P. (1998). Multidimensional Perceptions of injury: Implications for the "adversary culture." In AP-LS Conference, Redondo Beach, CA.
64. Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993).
65. Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing punitive damages (with notes on cognition and valuation in law). Yale Law Journal, 107, 2071-2153.
66. Taragin, M. I., Willett, L. R., Wilczek, A. P., Trout, R., & Carson, J. L. (1992). The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Annals of Internal Medicine, 117, 780-784.
67. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443.113 S. Ct. 2711, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993).
68. Vidmar, N. (1995). Medical malpractice and the American jury: Confronting the myths about jury incompetence, deep pockets, and outrageous damage awards. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan Press.
69. Vidmar, N., Gross, F., & Rose, M. (1998). Jury awards for medical malpractice and post-verdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Review, 48, 265-299.
70. Viscusi, W. K. (2001). Jurors, judges, and the mistreatment of risk by the courts. Journal of Legal Studies, 30, 107-142.
71. Wissler, R. L., Hart, A. J., & Saks, M. J. (1999). Decision-making about general damages: A comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Michigan Law Review, 98, 751-826.
72. Zoppo v. Homestead Insurance Co., 644 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 1994).