Abstract
Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages. In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages in one of three conditions: (a) compensatory damages only, (b) punitive damages for the plaintiff, or (c) punitive damages for the state treasury. Results suggest that jurors who did not have the option to award punitive damages inflated compensatory damages via pain and suffering awards. Jurors were marginally more likely to award punitive damages when the plaintiff was the recipient. Mock jurors in Study 2 read a similar case summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages. Two factors were varied in Study 2: (a) egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, and (b) the recipient of any punitive damages (the plaintiff vs. a consortium of state funds). Jurors were more likely to award punitive damages when the defendant's conduct was more egregious and when the plaintiff was the recipient. The results suggest leakage between compensatory and punitive damage judgments, contrary to the law's mandate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Austin, W., Walster, E., & Utne, M. (1976). Equity and the law: The effect of “suffering in the act” on liking and assigned punishment. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 9 (pp. 163-190). New York: Academic.
Bailis, D. S., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419-429.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17-33.
Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1995, July). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 296-316.
Black's law dictionary (5th ed.). (1983). St. Paul, MN: West.
Blum, A. (1993, March 8). State want share of punitives: Three more join trend. National Law Journal, p. 3.
BMW of North America, Inc., v. Ira Gore, Jr., 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996).
Breslo, J. A. (1992). Taking the punitive damages windfall away from the plaintiff: An analysis. Northwestern University Law Review, 86, 1130-1167.
Burrows, S. G. (1992). Apportioning a piece of a punitive damage award to the state: Can state extraction statutes be reconciled with punitive damage goals and the takings clause? University of Miami Law Review, 47, 437.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cather, C., Greene, E., & Durham, R. (1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189-206.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, Civil, of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, California Jury Instructions: Civil [BAJI] (1986 & 1994) (Section 14.61, 7th ed. 1986 & Supp. 1994).
Congress passes liability-suit limits. (1996, April 4). Facts on File World News Digest, p. 216B1.
Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995). Civil juries and the politics of reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Darley, J. M., & Huff, C. W. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of the intentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 181-188.
DeFrances, C. J., Smith, S. K., Langan, P. A., Ostrom, B. J., Rottman, D. B., & Goerdt, J. A. (1995). Civil jury cases and verdicts in large counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ-154346. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Galanter, M. (1996). Real world torts: An antidote to anecdote. Maryland Law Review, 55, 1093-1160.
Ga. Code Ann. §51-12-5.1(e)(2) (Supp. 1995).
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1973).
Ghiardi, J. D. (1987). Punitive damages: Law and practice (§5.36). Deerfield, IL: Clark, Boardman, Callaghan.
Goldman, T. R. (1996, July 15). Tort reform: What happened, what's next. New Jersey Law Journal, p. 4.
Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1992).
Greene, E. (1989). On juries and damage awards: The process of decisionmaking. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 225-246.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269-285.
Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 735 §5/2-1207 (1994).
Kerr, N., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision making. Science, 244, 1046-1050.
MacCoun, R. J. (1993). Inside the black box: What empirical research tells us about decisionmaking by civil juries. In Robert E. Litan (ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system. Washington, DC: Brookings.
MacCoun, Robert J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep-pockets” hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121-161.
McKown, J. R. (1995). Punitive damages: State trends and developments. Review of Litigation, 14, 419.
Moller, E. (1996). Trends in civil jury verdicts since 1985. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.
Note, an economic analysis of the plaintiff's windfall from punitive damage litigation. (1992). Harvard Law Review, 105, 1900-1919.
Ostrom, B. J., Rottman, D. B., & Goerdt, J. A. (1996). A step above anecdote: A profile of the civil jury in the 1990s. Judicature, 79, 233-241.
Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. J. Legal Studies, 13, 1-55.
Read, S. J., Vanman, E. J., & Miller, L. C. (1997). Connectionism, parallel constraint satisfaction processes, and gestalt principles: (Re)introducing cognitive dynamics to social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 26-53.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc, 403 U. S. 29 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
S.1554, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997).
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Smith, A. (1995, May 13). Society would be the loser if punitive damage awards are give to the state. San Diego Union-Tribune, p. B7.
Turner, M. S. & Houghton, A. T. (1996, July 29). Punitive damages reform moves to the state arena. National Law Journal, p. B7.
Tyler, T., Boeckmann, R., Smith, H., and Huo, Y. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Umbreit, M. S. (1989). Crime victims seeking fairness, not revenge: Toward restorative justice. Federal Probation, 53, 52-57.
Wangen et al. v. Ford et al., 97 Wis. 2d 260, 277 (1980).
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, M.C., MacCoun, R.J. Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive Damages. Law Hum Behav 23, 313–330 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022308515445
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022308515445