Roselle Wissler

Reducing Variability in Civil Jury Awards

The purpose of the present study was to test several procedures that could be adopted for reducing unwanted variability in civil damage awards. Four methods for providing guidance to jurors (and judges) about the distribution of awards in comparable cases were compared to each other, to a no-guidance control, and to the capping of awards at a specified maximum, which has been the most commonly legislated “solution.” The findings of this study suggest several alternative solutions that are better able than caps to solve the problem of unwanted variability in awards.

Mediation and Adjudication in Small Claims Court: The Effects of Process and Case Characteristics

Research examining the relative effectiveness of mediation and adjudication has raised questions about whether the apparent benefits of mediation can be attributed to differences in the two dispute resolution procedures or, instead, are due to differences in the characteristics of the disputes or disputants in the different procedures. Litigants in four small claims courts provided multiple comparison groups that enabled us to empirically examine case and process effects. Disputes and disputants in mediation and adjudication differed on few attributes. The process, outcomes, and impact of mediation and adjudication differed in ways generally consistent with their theoretical differences. Although the degree of liability admitted by the defendant played a role, overall, differences in the effectiveness of mediation and adjudication were due more to differences in the processes themselves than to differences in the disputes and disputants using each procedure.

DECISIONMAKING ABOUT GENERAL DAMAGES: A COMPARISON OF JURORS, JUDGES, AND LAWYERS

The research reported in this Article investigates jurors’ perceptions of injury seriousness and awards of general damages, and compares them to judges’ and lawyers’ responses to the same injuries. We developed regression models for each group of decision makers to determine which attributes of the injuries had what degree of impact on injury severity judgments and on awards. The models also examined how differences in geography, demography, and experiences affected decisions. The models showed a remarkable degree of similarity among the decision-making groups when evaluating the severity of injuries. That is, jurors, judges, and lawyers largely relied on the same injury attributes in similar ways and gave them similar relative weight. When it came to translating injury perceptions into monetary awards, however, more differences among the groups appeared, and the predictive power of the models declined. The findings suggest that the differences between jurors’ awards and those of the other groups do not reflect fundamental differences in decision making, but rather a loss of consistency in translating perceptions of injury severity into damages. That loss of consistency likely can be attributed to the fact that jurors lack the frame of reference created by other cases that is readily available to judges and lawyers. The article concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings.

The Impact of Jury Instructions on the Fusion of Liability and Compensatory Damages

This study examined whether special jury instructions or the bifurcation of liability and compensation decisions would counter the tendency for evidence concerning the defendants liability to affect damages awards. Mock jurors made liability and award decisions in response to a case description in which the level of defendant responsibility for the plaintiffs injuries and the type or timing of damages instructions were systematically varied. Instructions not to discount awards for uncertainty about the defendants fault and instructions not to increase awards to punish the defendants carelessness reduced the impact of the defendants conduct on awards, while bifurcation did not. Additional findings suggest, at least in the context of the present study, that discounting may be a somewhat more potent process than surcharging. Possible explanations for these effects are discussed.

Instructing Jurors on General Damages in Personal Injury Cases: Problems and Possibilities

The authors consider instructions that courts do or could give to jurors to guide them in making awards for general damages in civil litigation. The authors review the nature and content of current instructions about the factors that should (or should not) affect jurors awards, as well as the limited body of empirical research on the impact of these instructions. The most noteworthy feature of current instructions regarding damages is the lack of guidance they provide. The consequence appears to be awards that have considerable variability and that are influenced by improper considerations. The authors also discuss research on the effectiveness of alternative forms of jury instructions and trial procedures in preventing or reducing these problems. From Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 2000, Vol. 6, No. 3, 712-742. DOI: 10.1037//1076-8971.6.3.712 Copyright