Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide
University of Chicago Press, Dec 19, 2008 - Law - 296 pages
Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida class action lawsuit brought against cigarette manufacturers. Or consider two recent verdicts against the auto manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights, and the environment, multimillion-dollar punitive awards have been a subject of intense controversy.
But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors-experts in psychology, economics, and the law-present the results of controlled experiments with more than 600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens. Although juries tended to agree in their moral judgments about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and unpredictable dollar awards. The experiments also showed that instead of moderating juror verdicts, the process of jury deliberation produced a striking "severity shift" toward ever-higher awards. Jurors also tended to ignore instructions from the judges; were influenced by whatever amount the plaintiff happened to request; showed "hindsight bias," believing that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists) may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages.
Using a wealth of new experimental data, and offering a host of provocative findings, this book documents a wide range of systematic biases in jury behavior. It will be indispensable for anyone interested not only in punitive damages, but also jury behavior, psychology, and how people think about punishment.
What people are saying - Write a review
What We Did and What We Found Reid Hastie
How Juries Think
Other editions - View all
$10 million accident Amos Tversky anchoring effects asked assessed award punitive damages behavior beneﬁts biases chapter chemicals company’s compensatory damages conﬁdence context corporate cost cost-beneﬁt analysis courts Daniel Kahneman defendant defendant’s conduct deﬁned deliberating juries deterrence theory deterrence value difﬁculty dollar awards dollar verdicts economic ex ante Experiment experimental ﬁgure ﬁnal ﬁnd ﬁndings ﬁrm ﬁrst ﬁve harm hindsight bias hindsight effects inﬂuence Jardel judge’s instructions judges judgments jury instructions jury verdict jury-eligible citizens jury’s Kip Viscusi liability for punitive ment mock juries mock jurors nitive damages NTSB optimal deterrence outrage participants plaintiff plaintiff’s attorney Polinsky-Shavell predeliberation predictable probability of detection proﬁt punishment value punitive awards punitive dam punitive damages amount punitive damages awards punitive damages decisions punitive intent question railroad reckless reﬂect respondents risk analysis risk beliefs safety sample scale scenario Shavell signiﬁcantly speciﬁc statistically signiﬁcant survey Table tions trial variability