NCJ Number
137705
Journal
Law and Contemporary Problems Volume: 54 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 5-42
Date Published
1991
Length
38 pages
Annotation
This article documents how jury verdicts for malpractice and other "deep pocket" personal injury defendants (product liability and government cases) compare with ordinary defendants (automobile torts) and analyzes possible explanations for the observed differences.
Abstract
Data were obtained from jury verdicts reported in five States between 1980 and 1985 (Florida, Missouri, Kansas, California, and Illinois). Analysis showed large and statistically significant differentials in jury awards for personal injuries between automobile cases (lowest) and medical malpractice (highest), even after adjusting for characteristics known to influence verdicts. Adjusted malpractice awards were almost three times larger than automobile awards. Observed differences in awards did not grow over time. Despite larger verdicts in malpractice cases, attorneys representing injured patients did not seem to earn excessive compensation. Juries sometimes responded emotionally, awarding some objectively similar cases higher damages than others. However, juries did better than their critics alleged. Most observed variations in the valuation of injury are explained by logical factors such as severity of injury and age of claimant. The authors contend that a relatively persuasive hypothesis to explain variations in the valuation of injury is that plaintiffs' lawyers disproportionately select for trial cases of uncertain liability where subjective damages are higher. Their policy conclusion is that problems in damage valuations need to be addressed across the board and not just for malpractice cases. Appendixes contain additional information on the study procedures. 127 footnotes, 3 tables, and 2 figures