The Effects of Injury Severity on Jury Negligence Decisions
Tóm tắt
According to the laws of negligence, jurors' liability decisions are to be influenced by the defendant's conduct, but not by the severity of the plaintiff's injuries. We conducted a jury simulation study to assess whether jurors reason in this manner. We manipulated the conduct of the defendant (reasonable, careless) and the severity of injuries to the plaintiff (mild, severe) in a simulated automobile negligence case. Jurors completed predeliberation questionnaires, deliberated to a verdict, and answered postdeliberation questionnaires. The defendant's conduct had a strong impact on liability judgments, but evidence related to injury severity also had an effect, albeit smaller. We analyze these findings in the context of various cognitive and motivational theories.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson, L., & Ager, J. (1978). Analysis of variance in small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341–347.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
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.
Bourgeois, M., Horowitz, I., ForsterLee, L., & Grahe, J. (1995). Nominal and interactive groups: Effects of preinstruction and deliberations on decisions and evidence recall in complex trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 58–67.
Diamond, S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–572.
Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight = foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.
Green, E. (1967). The reasonable man: Legal fiction or psychosocial reality? Law and Society Review, 2, 241–257.
Greene, E., & Johns, M. (1999). Comprehension of civil jury instructions. Paper presented at Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Horowitz, I., & Bordens, K. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269–285.
Jeansonne v. Landau et al., Denver County District Court (1997).
Kamin, K., & Rachlinski, J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 89–104.
Kaplan, M., & Miller, C. (1983). Group discussion and judgment. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group Processes (pp. 65–94). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Keeton, W. P. (Ed.) (1984). Prosser and Keeton on the law of torts (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162.
MacCoun, R. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep-pockets” hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121–161.
Robbennolt, J. (1998). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Tennen, H., & Affeck, G. (1990). Blaming others for threatening events. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 209–232.
Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.
Thomas, E., & Parpel, M. (1987). Liability as a function of plaintiff and defendant fault. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 843–857.
Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73–79.
Wilson, R., & Jonah, B. (1988). Assignment of responsibility and penalties for an impaired driving incident. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 564–583.