Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards. Jury-eligible citizens were shown a videotaped summary of an environmental damage lawsuit and told that the defendant had already paid compensatory damages. They were asked to judge liability for punitive damages and, if damages were to be assessed, to assign a dollar award. Three independent variables were manipulated in the case materials: the dollar amounts that were explicitly requested by the plaintiffs in their closing arguments to the jury, the geographical location of the defendant corporation, and the location of the lead plaintiff. Consistent with prior findings of anchor effects on judgments, we found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, the higher the awards. We also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs, while the location of the defendant company did not have reliable effects on the awards. The implications of these results for procedures in civil trials and for theories of juror decision making are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, M. C., & MacCoun, R. J. (1997). Goal conflict in jurors' assessments of compensatory and punitive damages. Unpublished manuscript, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, D., MacQueen, J. C., & Woodworth, G. (1995). Improving judicial oversight of jury damages assessments: A proposal for the comparative additur/remittitur review of awards for nonpecuniary harms and punitive damages. Iowa Law Review, 80, 1109–11267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, M. M., Sr. (1980). Punitive damages: Their history, their use, and their worth in present-day society. University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review, 49, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatt, R. L., Hammesfahr, R. W., & Nugent, L. S. (1991). Punitive damages: A state by state guide to law and practice. St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H. (1994). David, Goliath, and Reverend Bayes: Prior beliefs about defendants' status in personal injury cases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • B.M.W. v. Gore (1996). No. 94-894, 64 U.S.L.W. 4335 (May 20, 1996).

  • Cather, C., Greene, E., & Durham, R. (1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189–205.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1990). Myth and reality in punitive damages. Minnesota Law Review, 75, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995). Civil juries and the politics of reform. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model. In E. H. Witte and J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1, pp. 35–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L., Chen, X.-p., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards in mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. (1997). Efficiency effects of punitive damages. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26, 513–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, R. W. (1993). Jury instructions on damages in tort actions (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M. T. (1997). The predictability of punitive damages. Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 623–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Punitive damages after BMW, a new capping system, and the reported opinion bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 387–425.

  • Ellis, D. D., Jr. (1982). Fairness and efficiency in the law of punitive damages. Southern California Law Review, 56, 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. D., Jr. (1989). Punitive damages, due process, and the jury. Alabama Law Review, 40, 975–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M., & Luban, D. (1993). Poetic justice: Punitive damages and legal pluralism. American University Law Review, 42, 1393–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Runaway verdicts or reasoned determinations: Mock juror strategies in awarding damages. Jurimetrics Journal, 29, 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Loftus, E. F., Miller, M., & Greene, E. (1991). Money, sex, and death: Gender bias in wrongful death damage awards. Law & Society Review, 25, 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P. (1996). The contested role of the civil jury in business litigation. Judicature, 79, 242–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Ermann, M. D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1991). Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries? American University Law Review, 40, 703–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Payne, J. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 287–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. S. (1992). Bronx cheer: Inner-city jurors tend to rebuff prosecutors and to back plaintiffs. Wall Street Journal, 1992 (March 24), A1, A6.

  • Hayes, T. C. (1985). Texaco told to pay 10.5 billion. New York Times, 1985 (November 20), D1.

  • Himelstein, L. (1994). Jackpots from Alabama juries: A string of mammoth awards has insurers starting to flee. Business Week, 1994 (November 28), 83.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honda Motor Company v. Oberg (1994). 114 S. Ct. 2331.

  • Huber, P. W. (1988). Liability: The legal revolution and its consequences. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. W. (1989). No-fault punishment. Alabama Law Review, 40, 1037–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes, G. (1995). Where the torts blossom. Time, 1995 (March 20), 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, J. C., Jr. (1986). A comment on the constitutionality of punitive damages. Virginia Law Review, 72, 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 47–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., and Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups, Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. J. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 297–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep pockets” hypothesis. Law & Society Review, 30, 121–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, R., & Littlejohn, S. (1989). Innovation on trial: Punitive damages versus new products. Science, 246, 1395–1400.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller, E., Pace, N. M., & Carroll, S. J. (1997). Punitive damages in financial injury cases. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S., & Weitzman, L. J. (1972). Sex and the unbiased jury. Judicature, 56, 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. G. (1982). Civil punishment and the public good. Southern California Law Review, 56, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. G. (1994). A punitive damages overview: Functions, problems, and reform. Villanova Law Review, 39, 364–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (1997). Behavioral decision research: An overview. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Measurement, judgment, and decision making (pp. 303–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M., Sarma, S., & Shanley, M. (1987). Punitive damages: Empirical findings. RAND Report No. R-3311-ICJ. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky, A. M. (1997). Are punitive damages really insignificant, predictable, and rational? Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 663–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (1998). Punitive damages: An economic analysis. Harvard Law Review, 111, 869–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. L. (1996). Punitive damages reform: The case of Alabama. Louisiana Law Review, 56, 825–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quayle, D. (1994). Standing firm: A vice-presidential memoir. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, J. M. (1997). $3.5 billion for a rail fire. New York Times, 1997 (September 14), D2.

  • Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P. H., Calfee, J. E., & Grady, M. F. (1997). BMW v. Gore: Mitigating the punitive economics of punitive damages. In H. Demsetz, E. Gelhorn, & N. Lund (Eds.), Supreme Court economic review (Vol. 5, pp. 179–216). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustad, M., & Koenig, T. (1993). The historical continuity of punitive damages awards: Reforming the tort reformers. American University Law Review, 42, 1284–1304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system—and why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147–1292.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sales, J. B., & Cole, K. B., Jr. (1984). Punitive damages: A relic that has outlived its origins. Vanderbilt Law Review, 37, 1117–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmit, J. T., Prichett, S. T., & Fields, P. (1988). Punitive damages: Punishment or further compensation? Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55, 453–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, V. E., & Behrens, M. A. (1993). Punitive damages reform—State legislatures can and should meet the challenge issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in Haslip. American University Law Review, 42, 1365–1391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, V., & Magarian, L. (1990) Challenging the constitutionality of punitive damages: Putting rules of reason on an unbounded legal remedy. American Business Law Journal, 28, 485–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanley, M. G., & Peterson, M. A. (1987). Posttrial adjustments to jury awards. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slap, A. J., & Milstein, A. C. (1989). Punitive damages in toxic tort actions. Trial, 1989 (November), 85–91.

  • Snyder, E. C. (1971). Sex role differential and juror decisions. Sociology and Social Research, 55, 442–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, C. (1994). Exxon is told to pay $5 billion for Valdez spill. Wall Street Journal, 1994 (September), A1.

  • Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing punitive damages. Yale Law Journal, 107, 2071–2153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. A. C., & Parpel, M. (1987). Liability as a function of plaintiff and defendant fault. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 843–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. (1993). 113 S. Ct. 2711.

  • U.S. v. Koon, No. 92-686 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 1993) (Sentencing Memorandum).

  • Vidmar, N., Lee, J., Cohen, E., & Stewart, A. (1994). Damage awards and jurors' responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387–402.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, 80309

    Reid Hastie

  2. Department of Management, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712

    David A. Schkade

  3. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708

    John W. Payne

Authors
  1. Reid Hastie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Schkade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John W. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reid Hastie.

About this article

Cite this article

Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A. & Payne, J.W. Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards. Law Hum Behav 23, 445–470 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312115561

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312115561

Keywords

Search

Navigation