Forty Years of Civil Jury Verdicts
نویسندگان
چکیده
Debate over civil justice reform in the United States frequently centers on the extent to which damage awards granted by juries have been escalating over time. However, past studies on civil juries have been hampered by lack of data on verdicts spanning a sufficiently long time period. Average jury awards tend to be highly variable from year to year, making it difficult to distinguish trends over relatively short periods of time. We use the longest time series of data on jury verdicts ever assembled: 40 years of data on tort cases in San Francisco County, CA and Cook County, IL collected by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. We find that while there has been a substantial increase in the average award amount in real dollars, much of this trend is explained by changes in the mix of cases, particularly a decreasing fraction of automobile cases and an increase in medical malpractice. Claimed economic losses, in particular claimed medical losses, also explain a great deal of the increase. Although there appears to be some unexplained growth in awards for certain types of cases, this growth is cancelled out on average by declines in awards in other types of cases.
منابع مشابه
Demand for a Jury Trial and the Selection of Cases for Trial
This paper uses a unique data set to examine how parties in civil litigation choose whether to demand a jury trial or to waive this right and whether trial forum influences the probability of trial versus settlement. Plaintiffs are more likely to demand trial by jury when juries are relatively more favorable to plaintiffs in similar cases and jury trials are relatively less costly than bench tr...
متن کاملPermitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona reform.
A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors wer...
متن کاملRhinology and medical malpractice: An update of the medicolegal landscape of the last ten years.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS Malpractice claims pertaining to rhinological procedures are a potentially important source of information that could be used to minimize the risk of future litigation and improve patient care. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective review of a publicly available database containing jury verdicts and settlements. METHODS The LexisNexis Jury Verdicts and Settlements database was ...
متن کاملEstimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts
Average accuracy of jury verdicts for a set of cases can be studied empirically and systematically even when the correct verdict cannot be known. The key is to obtain a second rating of the verdict, for example, the judge’s, as in the recent study of criminal cases in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). That study, like the famous Kalven-Zeisel study, showed only m...
متن کاملThe End of Tort Reform?: the Constitutional Battle Looms over Mississippi
Thirty years ago, rising health care costs sparked a panic in state legislatures. 1 As a result, states began looking for ways to tame increasing health care costs. 2 Many, including insurance companies and health care providers, attributed the rising costs to increased litigation, excessive jury verdicts, and rising insurance premiums. 3 As a result, legislatures turned to statutory caps on no...
متن کامل