Separating Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Decisions by Trial Bifurcation
Tóm tắt
In a simulated products liability trial, we tested the effects of bifurcating decisions regarding compensatory and punitive damage awards. Fifty-nine groups of 5–7 jurors heard evidence in a unitary or bifurcated format, deliberated about the case to a unanimous decision, and awarded damages. Trial bifurcation decreased variability in compensatory damage awards across juries hearing the same case, and also decreased the tendency for juries to award extremely high compensatory damages. In addition, deliberation led to lower compensatory awards in the low injury severity condition and higher awards in the high injury severity condition. Jurors reported that they were using evidence more appropriately when the decisions were bifurcated. Implications of evidence bifurcation in civil trials are discussed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson, M. C., & MacCoun, R. J. (1999). Goal conflict in juror assessments of compensatory and punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 313–330.
Bornstein, B. (1998). From compassion to compensation: The effect of injury severity on mock jurors’ liability judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1477–1502.
Bornstein, B. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.
Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., & ForsterLee, L. (1993). The effects of technicality and access to trial transcripts on verdicts and information processing in a civil trial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 220–227.
Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Grahe, J. (1995). Nominal and interactive juries: Effects of preinstruction and discussion on decisions and evidence recall in a complex trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 87–96.
Cather, C., Greene, E., & Durham, R. (1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications of compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189–205.
Colorado Jury Instructions 3d: Civil. (1986). Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Civil Jury Instructions.
Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995) Civil juries and the politics of reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Davis, J. H., Kameda, T., & Stasson, M. (1992). Group risk taking: Selected topics. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior (pp. 163–199). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
DeFrances, C. J., & Litras, M. F. (1999). Civil trial cases and verdicts in large counties, 1996. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ Report #173426.
Diamond, S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.
Diamond, S. S., Saks, M. J., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror judgements about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 301–325.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (2005). Rule 42.
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.
ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: The effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 14–21.
ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1995). Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567–578.
Greene, E. (1989). On juries and damage awards: The process of decision making. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 225–246.
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743–768.
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. (2003). The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greene, E., Johns, M., & Bowman, J. (1999). The effects of injury severity on jury negligence decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 675–693.
Greene, E., Woody, W. D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187–204.
Hengstler, G. A. (1986). Psychic's case to be retried. ABA Journal, 72, 23–24.
Herman v. Sunshine Chemical Specialties, Inc. 627 A. 2d 1081 (N.J., 1993).
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors’ participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–261.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121–150.
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– 229.
Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269–285.
Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 121–130.
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.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.
Lamm, H., & Myers, D. G. (1978). Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 145–195). New York: Academic Press.
Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 297–342.
Laughlin, P. R., VanderSteop, S. W., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991). Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 50–67.
Lempert, R. O. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In R. E. Litan (Ed.), Verdict. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15, 337–341.
Litras, M. F., Gifford, S., DeFrances, C., Rottman, D., LaFountain, N., & Ostrom, B. (2000). Tort trials and verdicts in large counties, 1996. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ Report #179769.
Myers, D. G. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgedrer (Eds.), Group decision making. London: Academic Press.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1975). The polarizing effect of group discussion: The discovery that discussion tends to enhance the average prediscussion tendency has stimulated new insights about the nature of group influence. American Scientist, 63, 297–303.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.
Nisbett, R. E., & Willson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Hanson, R. (1992). What are tort awards really like? The untold story from the state courts. Law and Policy, 14, 77–106.
Penrod, S., & Heuer, L. (1998). Improving group performance: The case of the jury. In R. S. Tindale & L. Heath (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum.
Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 315–341.
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.
Schkade, D. A., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Deliberating about dollars: The severity shift. In C. R. Sunstein, R. Hastie, J. W. Payne, D. A. Schkade, & W. K. Viscusi (Eds.), Punitive damages: How juries decide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vidmar, N. (1998). The performance of the American civil jury: An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review, 40, 849–899.
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.
Wissler, R. L., Rector, K. A., & Saks, M. J. (2001). The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 125–139.
Zeisel, H., & Callahan, T. (1963). Split trials and time saving: A statistical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1606–1625.