Lay Juries, Professional Arbitrators and the Arbitrator Selection Hypothesis
نویسنده
چکیده
Do civil juries follow the broad dictates of the law? For example, do those plaintiffs who suffer greater damages receive greater awards? Do juries empty “deep pockets,” and, if so, by how much? Are juries consistent? In many states automobile accidents are first tried by a professional arbitrator and then by a jury if one of the litigants is dissatisfied with the outcome. How do the decisions made by arbitrators compare to the decisions made by juries? This paper seeks to answer these questions by first developing a model of arbitrator selection and then undertaking an empirical study of 380 automobile accident cases that first went through an arbitration trial and then a jury trial.
منابع مشابه
On the Selection of Arbitrators
A key feature of arbitration is the possibility for conflicting parties to participate in the selection of the arbitrator, the individual who will rule the case. We analyze this problem of the selection of arbitrators from the perspective of implementation theory. In particular, theoretical analyses document problems with veto-rank, a simultaneous procedure that is commonly used in practice, an...
متن کاملPractice and Predicament: The Nationality of the International Arbitrator (With Survey Results)
This Essay builds on the available literature to date and offers a more probing examination of the international arbitrator and nationality. The opening section reiterates how arbitrator nationality relates to the traditional requirements of arbitrator impartiality, independence, and neutrality (with which the “arbitrator” is most synonymous); how arbitral rules seek diversity of nationality be...
متن کاملPublic Participation: More than a Method?; Comment on “Harnessing the Potential to Quantify Public Preferences for Healthcare Priorities through Citizens’ Juries”
While it is important to support the development of methods for public participation, we argue that this should not be at the expense of a broader consideration of the role of public participation. We suggest that a rights based approach provides a framework for developing more meaningful approaches that move beyond public participation as synonymous with consultation to value the contribution ...
متن کاملFrom ideals to deals—The effect of impartiality experience on stakeholder behavior
In this paper, we study a two-party pie-sharing problem in the presence of asymmetries in the stakeholders' private endowments. Both the two stakeholders and third-party arbitrators may influence the outcome. We consider Nash-demand negotiations, where the two stakeholders place demands and share the pie accordingly if demands are compatible, and elicit dictatorial allocations from the stakehol...
متن کاملWhy Rich Countries Win Investment Disputes: Taking Selection Seriously
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is a rapidly growing field of international law, due mainly to a proliferation of investment treaties among states that grant foreign investors the right to pursue binding arbitration against states for alleged violations of property rights. However, many have argued that poorer countries are systematically disadvantaged in arbitration since the costs of...
متن کامل