Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consulting on Damage Awards

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Trial Consulting

Abstract

Cases that come to trial in the civil litigation arena typically involve two broad ­decisions by jury or judge: liability or fault, and compensation for injury or loss (there may be punitive damages as well, but these are rare, occurring in only 5% or so of civil trials with winning plaintiffs; see, e.g., Langston & Cohen, 2008; Eisenberg, Goerdt, Ostrom, Rottman, & Wells, 1997). Our focus here is on jurors’ and juries’ assessments of damages to compensate injured parties for their losses, and the role that the trial consultant can play in shaping those decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

     Interestingly, if the defendant can show that her birth parents would have been just as unloving as her rearing parents, then there would be no “but-for” causation with respect to her past injuries. Her future injuries would still be difficult to contest.

  2. 2.

     Eliminating prospective jurors solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional (Batson v. U.S, 1986), but this prohibition is largely unenforceable (Brown, 2003).

References

  • Batson v. U.S., 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, M. (1982). Modern trials (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H., & Nemeth, R. J. (1999). Jurors’ perception of violence: A framework for inquiry. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovbjerg, R. R., Sloan, F. A., & Blumstein, J. F. (1989). Valuing life and limb in tort: Scheduling “pain and suffering”. Northwestern University Law Review, 83, 908–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovbjerg, R., Sloan, F., Dor, A., & Hsieh, C. (1991). Juries and justice: Are malpractice and other personal injuries created equal? Law and Contemporary Problems, 53, 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broeder, D. (1959). The University of Chicago jury project. Nebraska Law Review, 38, 744–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. (2003). Racial discrimination in jury selection: Professional misconduct, not legitimate advocacy. Review of Litigation, 22, 209–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colon ex rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Danzon, P. (1986). The frequency and severity of medical malpractice claims: New evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49, 57–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S., Ellis, L., Saks, M., & Landsman, S. (2000). Ad damnums and caps: Assistance or merely influence? Paper presented at meeting of American Psychology-Law Society. New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S., Saks, M., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillehay, R. (1999). Authoritarianism and jurors. In W. Abbott & J. Batt (Eds.), Handbook of jury research. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M. T. (1997). The predictability of punitive damages. Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 623–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. (2002). Trial outcomes and demographics: Is there a Bronx effect? Texas Law Review, 80, 1839–1874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M. (2003). New visual technologies in court: Directions for research. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 109–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Foote, W. (1995). Compensation for pain, suffering, and other psychological injuries: The impact of Daubert on employment discrimination claims. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Coon, D., & Bornstein, B. (2001). The effects of limiting punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Downey, C., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Juror decisions about damages in employment discrimination cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1991). Jurors’ attitudes about civil litigation and the size of damage awards. American University Law Review, 40, 805–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors’ judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review, 26, 85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. (1994). Perceptions of civil justice: The litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Payne, J. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff’s request and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. (1992). Inner city jurors tend to rebuff prosecutors and to back plaintiffs. Wall Street Journal, A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V. B., & Indahl, K. E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 991–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., & Dunn, M. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langston, L., & Cohen, T. (2008). Civil bench and jury trials in state courts, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ 223851). Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 91–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliff, B. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2010). All anchors are not created equal: The effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, J. O. (2002). Per diem or similar mathematical basis for fixing damages for pain and suffering. American Law Reports: Cases and Annotations, 3, 940–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, G., & Sales, B. (1993). Artificial legal standards in mental/emotional injury litigation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 11, 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, H. (2004). Appraising intangibles: How jurors award non-economic damages. Orange County Lawyer, 46, 44–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poser, S., Bornstein, B., & McGorty, E. (2003). Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: The view from the bench and the jury box. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 53–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors’ decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M., & Vidmar, N. (2002). The Bronx “Bronx jury”: A profile of civil jury awards in New York counties. Texas Law Review, 80, 1889–1898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (2002). Trial outcomes and demographics: Easy assumptions versus hard evidence. Texas Law Review, 80, 1877–1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, V., & Silverman, F. (2004). Hedonic damages: The rapidly bubbling cauldron. Brooklyn Law Review, 69, 1037–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiecker, S., & Worthington, D. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 437–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., Gross, F., & Rose, M. (1998). Jury awards for medical malpractice and postverdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Review, 48, 265–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, K., Costanzo, M., & Berger, D. (2008). Predictors of verdict and punitive damages in high stakes litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 167–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wissler, R., Hart, A., & Saks, M. (1999). Decision making about general damages: A comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Michigan Law Review, 98, 751–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, A. (2001). Damage caps and civil litigation: An empirical study of medical malpractice litigation in the South. American Law and Economics Review, 3, 197–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, 335 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Authors
  1. Brian H. Bornstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edie Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian H. Bornstein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bornstein, B.H., Greene, E. (2011). Consulting on Damage Awards. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation