
учебный год 2023 / 1394280
.pdf306 |
|
|
|
Hastie,Schkade,and Payne |
|
that the |
shift"was caused |
by |
the |
between |
and |
|
"leniency |
|
asymmetry |
prosecution |
defense burdensand standardsof proof in criminaltrials).However,the empirical evidence is still tentativeand the prodefendantleniencyshift would only emerge
in some cases and for |
that include a substantialcoalition of |
|
jury configurations |
defendant-favoringjurors(see Lempert,1981, 1993,for a similarconclusionconcerningthe behavioralimplicationsof specialquestionswhen there are manyto- be-decidedelements in civil cases).
We do not have any firm basis to explainthe somewhatlower rate of proplaintiffverdictsin the Andersoncase comparedto the other three cases. We can speculatethat some of the criticaldifferencesarise from the fact that this is the onlycase in whichour mockjurorsdiscussedthe possiblecontributionof the victims (experiencedsailorswho were killedwhen theirpleasurecraftsankin a storm)to their own fate and it is the only case in which the defendantcompanydefinitely
took an actionto |
|
|
the |
|
|
thatwas |
|
the causeof the accident |
||||||
|
|
remedy |
|
problem |
|
putatively |
|
|
|
|||||
(the |
manufacturermailed a |
|
|
|
|
notice to dealersand first ownersof the |
||||||||
|
|
the |
|
recall/repair |
|
|
|
across |
||||||
boats). However, |
patterns |
of |
jury |
deliberationwere |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
indistinguishable |
|
||||||||
cases in termsof the content analysiswe performed. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
In the cases we studied individual |
|
exhibiteda |
persistenttendency |
to |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jurors |
|
|
|
favorthe plaintiffs,concludingthat punitivedamageswere warrantedwhenjudges had concludedthey were not. These verdictsare not anomalies;they were consis- tentlyobtainedfor the factualcircumstancesandwith standardinstructionson the
law from four |
|
|
|
civil cases. |
|
we cannotclaimthat these re- |
|||
|
|
representative |
Obviously, |
format,will |
|
||||
sults, from a |
sample |
of |
only |
four cases |
presented |
in a |
gen- |
||
|
|
|
|
summary |
eralize to all punitivedamagesjudgments.But we have establisheda consistent
|
between |
andsome |
|
|
for these cases.Webelieve |
||||
discrepancy |
jurors' |
|
judges'judgments |
|
|
||||
that |
|
|
and |
|
of |
judge's |
instructionson |
is |
|
|
poor comprehension |
application |
|
liability |
part |
of the explanationfor the tendencyto disagreewith the judges.In supportof this
we observeda correctiveeffect in deliberationsuch that the juries interpretation,
that more thoroughlyconsideredthe judge's instructionswere likelier to render verdictsin favorof the defendant.
|
|
Implications for the Civil Justice System |
|
||||||
The |
subject |
of |
|
|
|
|
is surrounded |
and the con- |
|
|
|
punitivedamages |
by controversy |
||||||
is intensified |
by |
the |
high |
economicstakes and the social significanceof |
|||||
troversy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the issues involved.One fundamentalproblemis that there is not consensuson the foundationsof the institution:Shouldthe civiljusticesystemservethe goals of
and deterrencein additionto the traditional |
of com- |
|
punishment,retribution, |
goal |
|
pensatingthose who have been injuredfor their losses? This is not primarilyan
the answersreston moralandethical |
aboutwhat |
"empiricalquestion"; |
assumptions |
we want, not considerationsof what is the truth.Nonetheless,we think that em- piricalresearchcan advancethe debateover the necessityand natureof a punitive
awards |
some nonissuesand |
the relationsbetween |
systemby eliminating |
byclarifying |
some proposedchangesin the systemand theirlikelyconsequences.Obviouslythe present researchis most relevantto proposalsto change the proceduresin jury trials.
LiabilityDecisions |
307 |
The proposalsto improvethe punitivedamagesinstitutionspanthe spectrum from abolitionto "it'snot broken,don't fix it" (Galanter& Luban,1993;Rustad & Koenig, 1993). The proposalsfor change can be dividedinto three categories: Firstthere are proposalsto changethe natureof the institution;these includeabolition (presumablythe functionsof the punitivedamagesawardwould be transferred to regulatorycontrols and to the criminalcourts), droppingthe goal of retributivepunishmentso that assessmentof an awardwould involveonly considerationsof deterrence,or shiftingthe groundsfor liabilityto excludesimple recklessness and to emphasizemaliciousness.Second there are proposalsto improve the appellate review process, most of these involve clarifyingthe principlesthat identify excessive awardsor provide more specific cataloguesof "mitigatingand
considerationsThird.there are |
to |
the |
|
aggravating" |
proposals |
improve |
performance |
of trialcourtsincludingprovidinglimitsor caps on the awardamounts,raisingthe
standardof |
proof, |
and |
instructionsto the |
for |
|
|
|
improving |
jury.Suggestions |
improve- |
ments in instructionsincludeaddingmore exhortationsto performconscientiously,
more |
|
|
definitionsof basic |
concepts |
in the currentinstructions-and |
|||||
more |
comprehensible |
|
|
and |
|
|||||
|
|
suchas the use of |
|
|
specialquestions |
|||||
|
controllingprocedures |
|
|
|
interrogatories |
|||||
verdictforms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
The pictureof the jurorsand the jurythat we developedin the present re- |
|||||||||
searchis not |
|
We believe |
juries |
are motivatedto |
|
their task ac- |
||||
|
|
reassuring. |
|
|
|
perform |
cording to the judge's instructions-at least there is no evidence that they are willfully disobedient-but they do not apply those instructionscorrectly(Finkel, 1995;Horowitz& Willging,1991;Myers,1979;Robinson& Darley, 1995;Wiener, et al., 1991). The main visible departurefrom proper procedurewas that jurors simply did not consider some legal requirementsat all that would have reduced
their |
to decide in favorof the |
on the issueof |
for |
|
|
proclivity |
plaintiff |
liability |
punitive |
damages.The jurors'inabilityto comprehendlegal concepts,the lure of reasoning
in terms of |
|
notions of |
|
and |
|
or |
possibly |
their |
|
|
everyday |
responsibility |
recklessness, |
|
|
||||
for the |
|
led themto |
ignore |
essential |
considerations. |
||||
sympathy |
|
injuredplaintiffs, |
legal |
|
|
|
There is also substantialdisagreementamongjurors(and then juries) on the verdictfor everyone of the four cases we presented.Ourempiricalresultsindicate that at least part of the explanationof this disorderis thatjurorsdo not fullyexecute theirlegallyprescribedtaskandthere is also considerablevariationin people's
of the concepts cited in the instructionson liability.Furthermore, interpretations
the cases that go to trial (fromwhichour stimuluscases were sampled)are likely
to be those whereboth partieshaveconvincingargumentsAnd,. in the background, reflectingthe controversiesover the institutionof punitivedamages,the everyday
concepts of responsibility,liability,deterrence,and punishmentthat jurors bring
into the |
|
box are |
topics |
on whichthereis substantial |
|
mem- |
|||
|
jury |
|
|
disagreementamong |
|
|
|||
bers of our society. |
of what is |
is that |
|
are faced with a |
|
||||
Our |
|
jurors |
very |
||||||
|
|
interpretation |
|
happening |
|
|
difficulttask: their everydayconcepts of liability,punishment,and deterrencedo
not |
map neatly |
onto their |
their |
habits of |
assessing |
|
|
legal counterparts; |
everyday |
blame do not matchthe legal proceduresof verifyingthat a seriesof requisite"elements" have each been establishedto a specified (and unfamiliar)"standardof proof";and when they get to the jurydeliberationpartof their task they discover
308 |
|
|
|
Hastie,Schkade,and Payne |
||
that there is substantial |
|
theirfellowcitizensabout |
conceptual |
|||
disagreementamong |
|
|
|
|||
and factualissues. Under these |
|
the |
fall backon their |
rough- |
||
|
circumstances, |
jurors |
|
|
and-readyeverydayreasoninghabits,probablyinfluencedby their sympathiesfor one partyor the other, and they fail to complete the task presentedto them in their instructionsfrom the judge.
We are not arguingfor eliminationof thejurytrialor abolitionof the punitive damagesin civiltrials.Webelievethatclarification,by authoritieslike the Supreme Court,of a theoryor underlyingpolicyfor the institutionwill have majorbenefits. The efforts to improvethe acuityof appellatereviewby clarifyingthe underlying
theory |
and |
|
more detailed |
|
to |
|
verdicts |
|
|
by providing |
guidelines |
identifyinappropriate |
that |
||||
shouldalso increasethe |
of the |
The |
presentfindingssuggest |
|||||
|
|
|
reliability |
|
system. |
|
|
providingmore directguidanceand controlover the jurydecisionprocess-for example, througha device such as requiringanswersto interrogatoryquestionson the elements warrantingeach general verdict or by returningspecial verdicts-
shouldhelp (see May, 1995,and Wigginsand Breckler,1990,for concurringopin- ions). Especiallyin cases in which there is a clear structureof conjunctiveand
|
|
|
on elementsthat must be decidedto |
renderthe |
|||||
disjunctiverelationships |
|
|
|
|
properly |
|
|||
generalverdict, |
an |
|
|
|
|
could insurethat each element re- |
|||
|
interrogatoryquestionnaire |
|
|
||||||
ceived some considerationin the decision |
Furthermore,if, as we have |
sug- |
|||||||
|
there is a bias in |
|
decisions |
process. |
|
||||
gested, |
jury |
|
|
defendantsand in |
|||||
|
|
|
|
againstunsympathetic |
|
favor of injuredplaintiffs,increasingthe requisitestandardof proof should help reduce the rate of improperverdicts.
But there may still be additionalproblemsfor the jury decidingliabilityfor punitivedamagesthatwill not be correctedby forcingjuriesto heed morecarefully
the law |
given |
to them in the |
judge's |
instructionsIt. is not |
to find that |
|
|
|
surprising |
jurorsare confusedby their instructionson judgingliabilityfor punitivedamages given that there are few, if any, coherenttheoriesof the natureof the institution at the highestlevels of legal policy analysis.Even the juries that most thoroughly
still |
rendered,"Yes,punitivedamages |
consideredthe relevantlegal requirements |
are warranted"verdictsabout half of the time, substantial (45%) demonstrating
disagreementamongjurorsand betweenjurorsandjudges.SupremeCourtJustice
O'Connor |
the critical |
of our empiricalfindings:"Manycourts |
|
expressed |
implication |
continueto providejurorswith skeletalguidancethat permitsthe traditionalguarantorof fairness-the juryitself-to be convertedinto a sourceof capriceandbias"
(TXO Prod. Corp. v.Alliance ResourcesCorp., 1993, p. 2742). Here again we believe that furtherempiricalresearchcan informand focus the debate overwhetherand how we should assess punitivedamages.
APPENDIX
Jardel Co., Inc. v. K. Hughes
This case involvesthe followingtwo parties:the plaintiff,KathleenHughes, a shoppingmall employeewho was abductedfrom the mall parkinglot, beaten,
LiabilityDecisions |
309 |
and raped;the defendant,Jardel Co., Inc., owner and operatorof the shopping mall.
The specificsof the case are as follows:
On July 18, 1980, shortlyafter the 9:00 p.m. closing time, the plaintiff,an employeeof the Woolcostore in the Blue Hen Mall,left her place of employment. She walked throughthe interiorarcadeof the mall and exited throughthe rear entranceadjacentto the parkinglot where her vehicle was located. Near the entrance to the Fox theater,the plaintiffwas accostedby two scruffy-lookingyoung men who had been denied entranceto the theaterbecauseFox personnelbelieved them intoxicated.When these individualsaskedplaintifffor a cigarette,she briefly spokewiththem,gave them a cigaretteandwalkedon. The men followedthe plain-
tiff to her |
car, |
which was |
50 feet from the mall entrance. |
|
|
parked approximately |
When she attemptedto enter her car, they forced theirway into her car with her and drove away.
After being driven to a remote site adjacentto the mall, the plaintiffwas beaten and rapedby both assailants.While she was unconsciousand lying on the
ground,her assailantsattemptedto run her over with her car and later set fire to the car while she was lying in it. Plaintiffregainedconsciousnessand staggered
nude and bloodiedonto a |
where a |
motoristfound her and |
|
nearbyhighway |
passing |
took her to a nearbyhospital.
Plaintiffremainedhospitalizedfor 6 days.She was treatedfor severe contusions to the face and scalp, a cerebralconcussionand a permanentskullfracture. This latter injuryhas resulted in a permanentdisplacementof her left eye and double vision. In additionto her physicalinjuriesthe plaintiff,at the time of trial
four |
years later, |
still suffered |
|
effects from her traumatic |
|
|
|
psychological |
experience. |
||
|
Since 1979,JardelhadcontractedwithGlobe SecuritySystems,Inc.to provide |
||||
|
for the mallexterior.Jardel |
to the numberof |
guardsprovided |
||
guards |
|
paidaccording |
by Globe. Jardel decided to use one guardfor each nightlyshift beginningat 9 p.m. Globe personneltestified that they had suggestedto Jardelthat the mall exteriorwas too largefor one guardandthatmoreguardswere needed.Jardeldenied receivinga specific recommendationbut did acknowledgethat Globe requested, on more than one occasion, an increase in the numberof guards.In response, Jardel asked Globe to justifythe additionalexpense.
Globe said they wantedan additionalguardbecausethere was no radiocontact with the Dover police. The police allowed direct radio access only to police officers.Globe wanteda secondguardinsidethe mall,who wouldbe in radiocontact with the outside guardand could telephone the police. Jardelcounteredthat maintenancepersonnelwho alreadyworkedinside the mall throughoutthe night could contact the police if necessary.
When Hugheswas forced into her vehicle in the rearparkinglot, the single Globe guardwas in his patrolvehicle, parkedin the front parkinglot.
Mall ownersare not compelledto providesecurity.But Jardelchose to provide security,presumablyto render the mall more attractiveto its tenants, and their customersand employees.Once Jardeldid providea securityprogram,Jardel became obligatedto do it in a reasonablemanner,with a view towardthe dangers to which the programwas directed.The standardthat governsthis situationsays,
310 |
Hastie,Schkade,and Payne |
"Apossessorof landwho holdsit open to the publicfor businesspurposesis liable to the publicwhile they are on the landfor suchpurpose,for physicalharmcaused by . . . intentionally harmful acts of third persons. If past experience is such that the owner shouldreasonablyanticipatecriminalconducton the part of thirdper- sons, either generallyor at some particulartime, he may be undera duty to take precautionsagainstit, and to providea reasonablysufficientnumberof servants to affordreasonableprotection."
A Dover police officerpresentedevidenceof the numberof police responses to the Blue Hen Mall in the 2 1/2 years precedingthe incident.Of 394 incidents
|
over 90%were |
|
or |
|
|
crimes.The |
incidents, |
||||
reported, |
|
property |
|
nonpersonal |
|
|
remaining |
||||
|
involveda |
|
|
at |
gun point, |
an armed |
|
a sexualmolesta- |
|||
however, |
kidnapping |
|
|
robbery, |
|||||||
tion, |
indecent |
and |
|
|
|
|
with |
|
|
one-halfof these |
|
exposures, |
|
pursesnatchings, |
approximately |
||||||||
incidentsoccurringin the mall parkinglot. |
|
|
the |
|
|||||||
|
The court concludedthat under the |
|
|
|
protectionprovided |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
circumstances, |
by Jardelwas an insufficientresponseto the knownhistoryof criminalactivity.
Hugheswas compensatedin full for her expenses,lost income,and pain and suffering.In addition,Hughesclaimedshe was entitledto punitivedamages.
PlaintiffArgumentin Favorof PunitiveDamages
Despite the historyof violent crimesin the Blue Hen Mall, and despite the repeatedrequestsfrom Globe Securityto add anotherguardbecauseof the large size of the parkinglot, Jardelchose to save money by havingonly one exterior guardon duty.Punitivedamagesshouldbe awardedagainstJardelto punishthem
for flagrantlyavoidingtheir dutyof protectingmall employeesand customers,and to deter them, and other mall owners,from such futurebehavior.
DefendantArgumentAgainstthe Awardof PunitiveDamages
we all wishcrimecouldbe |
we knowit cannotbe. In |
this |
Although |
prevented, |
|
case, Jardelvoluntarilyprovideda reasonablelevel of security,consistentwith the
|
|
of crimeon theirmall |
|
|
|
was not even close to the |
|||
|
|
Jardel'sbehavior |
|
|
|
||||
history |
property. |
for the |
of othersthat is |
required |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||||
maliciousor recklessand callousdisregard |
|
rights |
|||||||
by the Judge'sinstructionsfor the awardof punitivedamages. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Jury Instructions |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
The judge has given you the following instructionsthat you are requiredby law |
|||||||
to use in deciding whetheror not to awardpunitive damages. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
The purposesof punitivedamagesare to punisha defendantand to deter a |
|||||||
defendantand others from committingsimilaracts in the future. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
a |
Plaintiffhas the burdenof provingthat punitivedamagesshouldbe awarded |
|||||||
by |
of the evidence.You |
may |
award |
|
if |
you |
|||
|
preponderance |
|
|
punitivedamagesonly |
|
find that the defendant'sconduct
(1)was malicious;or
(2)manifestedrecklessor callousdisregardfor the rightsof others.
LiabilityDecisions |
311 |
Conductis maliciousif it is accompaniedby ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purposeof injuringanother.
In order for conduct to be in recklessor callous disregardof the rightsof
others, |
four factorsmust be |
present.First, |
a defendantmust be |
con- |
|
|
subjectively |
scious of a particulargrave dangeror risk of harm,and the dangeror risk must be a foreseeableand probableeffect of the conduct.Second,the particulardanger
or risk of which the defendantwas |
|
consciousmust in fact have even- |
||||
|
|
|
subjectively |
|
|
|
tuated. |
Third, |
a defendantmust have |
the riskin |
deciding |
how to act. |
|
|
|
|
disregarded |
|
Fourth,a defendant'sconductin ignoringthe dangeror riskmust have involveda gross deviationfrom the level of care whichan ordinarypersonwoulduse, having due regardto all the circumstances.
Recklessconductis not the same as negligence.Negligenceis the failureto use such care as a reasonable,prudent,andcarefulpersonwoulduse undersimilar circumstances.Recklessconductdiffersfrom negligencein that it requiresa conscious choice of action, eitherwith knowledgeof seriousdangerto others or with knowledgeof facts whichwould disclose the dangerto any reasonableperson.
To"establish |
|
a |
of the evidence"meansto |
prove |
that some- |
|||
|
|
by |
|
preponderance |
|
|
||
thing |
is more |
likely |
so thannot so. In other |
a |
of the evidence |
|||
|
|
|
|
words, preponderance |
|
in the case means such evidence as, when consideredand comparedwith that op- posed to it, has moreconvincingforce,andproducesin yourmindsbelief thatwhat is sought to be provedis more likelytrue than not true.
In your decisionson issues of fact, a corporationis entitledto the same fair trialat your handsas a privateindividualAll. persons,includingcorporations,part-
and other |
stand |
equal |
before the |
law, |
and are to be dealt |
nerships, |
organizations, |
|
|
with by the judge and jury as equals in a court of justice.
The verdictmust representthe consideredjudgmentof each juror.In order to returna verdict,it is necessarythat each juroragree thereto.Yourverdictmust be unanimous.
Upon retiringto the juryroom,you will select one of your numberto act as your presidingjuror.The presidingjurorwill presideover your deliberations.
Question
KathleenHughes(the plaintiff),a shoppingmallemployeewhowas abducted, beaten, and raped, while going to her car after work in the mall, has sued the mall's owner, Jardel Co., Inc., (the defendant)askingfor punitivedamages.You have been given a legal definitionof when punitivedamagesare proper.You must use that definitionwhetheryou agreewith it or not. Basedon that definitionwould
it be properto awardpunitivedamagesagainstJardelCo., Inc., yes, or no?
Answer:Yes No
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Supportfor the researchwas providedby funds from the National Science Foundation(GrantNo. SBR 9410288)and fromthe ExxonCo., USA. The authors
312 |
Hastie,Schkade,and Payne |
would like to thankRichardBerk,ValerieHans, CharlesJudd,JanetKabili,Gary McClelland,and the staffof BodakenAssociatesfor assistanceand adviceon vari-
ous aspects of the research.Of course, the views expressedin this paper should only be attributedto the authors.
REFERENCES
Adler, S. J. (1994). TheJury.New York:RandomHouse.
American Law Institute. (1991). Reporter's study: Enterprise responsibilityfor personal injury: Vol. 2. Approaches to legal and institutionalchange. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.
Anderson v. WhittakerCorp., 692 F. Supp. 734 (W.D. Mich., 1987). North America, Inc., v. Ira Gore, Jr., 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996).
M., & Kerr,N. L. (1979). Use of the simulationmethodin the studyof jurybehavior.Law
and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Broder, |
I. E. |
(1986). |
Characteristicsof milliondollarawards: |
verdictsand final disbursements. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jury |
|
|
|
|
||||||
Justice SystemJournal, 11, 349-359. |
|
in the |
|
|
of |
|
the |
||||||||||
Brown, |
D.K. |
(1996). |
Structureand |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
relationship |
jurisprudence |
juries:Comparing |
capital |
|||||||||
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
doctrines. |
Law |
Journal,47, |
1255-1323. |
|
|||||
sentencing |
& |
punitivedamages |
Trial |
Hastings |
CornellLaw |
||||||||||||
|
|
K. |
M., |
|
|
T. |
(1992). |
or |
|
|
|
||||||
Clermont, |
|
Eisenberg, |
byjury |
judge:Transcendingempiricism. |
|
||||||||||||
Review, 77, 1124-1177. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniels,S., & Martin,J. (1986).Juryverdictsand the 'crisis'in civiljustice.JusticeSystemJournal,11,
321-348. |
|
and |
in |
MinnesotaLaw |
|
1-64. |
|
Daniels,S., |
& |
J. |
Review,75, |
||||
|
Martin, |
(1990).Myth |
reality |
punitivedamages. |
|
Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995). Civil juries and the politics of reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
Press. University
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction:A theory of social decision schemes.
Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.
S. S. |
(1979). |
Simulation:Does the |
lens distort? |
introductionto |
special |
|
Diamond, |
|
microscope |
[Editor's |
issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 1-4.
Dillehay, R. C., & Nietzel, M. T. (1980). Constructinga science of jury behavior.In L. Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246-264). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Eades, R. W. (1993). Juryinstructionson damages in tort actions (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Finkel, N. J. (1995). Commonsensejustice:Jurors'notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. |
& |
Luban, |
D. |
|
Poetic |
|
Punitive |
|
and |
|
|
American |
||||||
Galanter,M., |
(1993). |
justice: |
damages |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
legal pluralism. |
|||||||||
UniversityLaw Review, 42, 1395-1463. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IL: Clark, |
|||||||||
Ghiaridi, J. D., & Kircher, J. J. (1995). Punitive damages: Law and practice. Deerfield, |
||||||||||||||||||
Boardmanand Callaghan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Harper v. Zapata Off-shore Co., 563 F. Supp. 576 (1983). |
|
|
|
for the selectionof |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
voir dire an effective |
impartial |
|||||||||
Hastie,R. (1991).Is attorney-conducted |
|
|
|
|
|
procedure |
|
|
||||||||||
juries? American UniversityLaw Review, 40, 1501-1524. |
|
|
|
|
MA:Harvard |
|||||||||||||
|
|
S. |
D., |
& |
|
|
N. |
|
Insidethe |
|
|
|
||||||
Hastie,R., Penrod, |
|
|
Pennington, |
(1983). |
|
jury.Cambridge, |
University |
|||||||||||
Press. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
civil |
|
Problemsand |
|
Lawand ContemporaryProblems, |
|||||||
D. R. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Hensler, |
(1988).Researching |
justice: |
|
|
pitfalls. |
|
|
|
|
51, 55-65.
Honda Motor Co. Ltd., et al., v. Karl L. Oberg, 114 S.Ct. 2331 (1994).
Horowitz,I. A., & Willging,T. E. (1991). Changingviews of jurypower:The NullificationDebate,
1787-1988. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 165-182.
Huber, P. W. (1988). Liability: The legal revolutionand its consequences. New York: Basic Books.
In re Marine Sulphur Queen, 460 F.2d 89 (1972).
In re TheExconValdez,No. A89-0095-CV(D. AlaskaSept. 1994).
Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, Del. Supr., 523 A. 2d 518 (1987).
Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1986). New light on punitive damages. Regulation,
1986(September/October),33-36, 54.
Lempert,R. 0. |
and |
cases:Let'snot rushto |
Law |
Review, |
(1981).Civiljuries |
complex |
judgmentMichigan. |
||
80, 68-132. |
|
|
|
LiabilityDecisions |
313 |
Lempert,R. 0. (1993). Civiljuriesand complexcases:Takingstock aftertwelveyears.In R. E. Litan
(Ed.), |
Verdict: |
the civil |
DC: |
Institute. |
|
Assessing |
jurysystem(pp. 181-247).Washington, |
Brookings |
Litan, R. E. (Ed.) (1993). Verdict:Assessing the civil jury system. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institute. |
|
|
|
of |
|
instructionsin the |
|
|
of a |
|
|
|||
J. |
|
|
|
|
|
penaltyphase |
trial.Law |
|||||||
Luginbuhl, |
(1992).Comprehension judge's |
|
|
|
capital |
|
||||||||
and HumanBehavior,16, 203-218. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
R. J. |
|
|
|
researchon |
jurydecisionmaking.Science,244, |
1046-1050. |
||||||||
MacCoun, |
|
(1989). Experimental |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
R. |
J., |
& |
N. L. |
|
|
|
|
influencein mock |
deliberation:Jurors'biasfor |
|||||
MacCoun, |
|
Kerr, |
(1988).Asymmetric |
|
jury |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Journal |
|
and Social |
Psychology,54, |
21-33. |
|
|
|
|
|||||
leniency. |
& |
of Personality |
|
|
|
|
versusnew |
|
||||||
R. |
J., |
S. E. |
(1989). |
Innovationon trial:Punitive |
|
products. |
||||||||
Mahoney, |
|
Littlejohn, |
|
|
|
|
|
damages |
|
Science,246, 1395-1399.
May,C. N. (1995).'Whatdo we do now?':Helpingjuriesapplythe instructionsLoyola.of LosAngeles
Law Review,28, 869-902. |
law:JuriesandtheirverdictsLaw.and |
|
|||
M. A. |
(1979). |
Rule |
and |
SocietyReview, |
|
Myers, |
|
departures |
making |
13, 781-798.
Neter, J., Wasserman,W., & Kutner,M. H. (1983).Appliedlinearregressionmodels.Homewood,IL: RichardD. Irwin.
Ostrom,B., Hanson,R., & Daley,H. (1993).So the verdictis in-What happensnext?The continuing storyof tort awardsin state courts.JusticeSystemJournal,16, 97-115.
PacificMutualLife InsuranceCo. v. Haslip,et al., 499 U.S. 1 (1991).
Pennington,N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitivetheoryof jurordecisionmaking:The StoryModel.
CardozoLaw Review,13, 519-557. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Pennington,N., |
& |
Hastie, |
R. |
(1993). |
A |
theory |
of |
|
decision |
|
In G. |
Klein, |
J. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
explanation-based |
|
making. |
|
||||||||||||
|
R. |
|
|
|
|
|
& C. E. Zsambok |
Decision |
in action:Modelsand methods |
|||||||||||
Orasanu, |
|
|
Calderwood, |
|
|
|
(Eds.), |
making |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
(pp. 188-204).Norwood,NJ:Ablex. |
|
|
|
selectionmodels. |
|
doctoral |
||||||||||||||
Penrod, |
S. D. |
(1979). |
A |
|
|
|
|
and |
"scientific"jury |
|
||||||||||
|
|
studyof attorney |
|
|
|
Unpublished |
|
dissertation,HarvardUniversity.
Peterson,M., Sarma,S., & Shanley,M. (1987). Punitivedamages:Empiricalfindings.Santa Monica,
CA RAND Corp. |
|
& |
|
P. C. |
|
Real |
|
of the law in real |
||||
Reifman,A., Gusick, |
S. |
M., |
|
(1992). |
|
|||||||
|
|
Ellsworth, |
|
jurors'understanding |
||||||||
cases.Law and HumanBehavior,16, 539-554. |
and blame: |
viewsand the criminal |
||||||||||
P. |
H., |
& |
|
|
J. M. |
|
|
|||||
Robinson, |
|
Darley, |
|
|
(1995).Justice,liability, |
Community |
law. Boulder,CO: WestviewPress.
Roeca, A. F. (1984). Damages.In G. Z. Nothstein(Ed.), Toxictorts:Litigationof hazardoussubstance
cases (pp. 494-524). New York:McGraw-Hill. |
of |
awards: |
the |
|||||
Rustad,M., |
& |
T. |
The historical |
|||||
|
Koenig, (1993). |
Law |
continuity |
punitivedamages |
Reforming |
|||
tort reformersAmerican. |
Review,42, |
1284-1304. |
|
|
||||
|
|
University |
|
|
|
|
Saks,M. J. (1992). Do we reallyknowanythingaboutthe behaviorof the tort litigationsystem-and
why |
not? |
|
|
|
Law |
Review,140, |
1147-1292. |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Universityof Pennsylvania |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Saks, M. J., Hollinger,L. A., Wissler,R. L., Evans,D. L., & Hart,A. J. (1997). Reducingvariability |
|||||||||||||||
in civiljuryawards.Law and HumanBehavior,21, 243-256. |
|
|
Verdict: |
the |
|||||||||||
P. H. |
|
|
the debateon |
jury |
reform.In R. E. Litan |
(Ed.), |
|||||||||
Schuck, |
|
|
(1993). Mapping |
|
|
|
|
Institute. |
Assessing |
||||||
civil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DC: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
jurysystem(pp. 306-340).Washington, |
|
Brookings |
|
IA:IowaState |
|
||||||||||
|
G. |
W., |
& |
W. G. |
Statisticalmethods |
|
University |
||||||||
Snedecor, |
|
Cochran, |
(1980). |
|
|
|
|
(7thed.).Ames, |
|
|
Press.
Stasser,G., & Davis, J. H. (1981). Groupdecisionmakingand social influence:A social interaction
sequencemodel.PsychologicalReview,88, 523-551.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-makinggroups.In P. B. Paulus(Ed.),Psychologyofgroupinfluence(pp.279-326).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
TXOProd. |
|
|
v. AllianceResources |
et |
al., |
113 S.Ct.2711 |
(1993). |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
N. |
Corp. |
|
|
|
|
Corp., |
|
|
about |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Medical |
|
andtheAmerican |
|
|
|
||||||||||
Vidmar, |
|
(1995). |
|
|
malpractice |
|
|
jury:Confrontingmyths |
juryincompetence, |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
awards.Ann Arbor,MI: |
|
of |
Press. |
||||||
deeppockets, |
|
outrageousdamage |
|
|
|
|
University |
Michigan |
and Social |
|||||||||
Wells, |
G. |
L., |
& |
|
|
|
I. |
(1989). |
Mentalsimulationof |
|
Journal |
|
||||||
|
|
Gavanski, |
|
|
|
|
causality. |
of Personality |
||||||||||
Psychology,56, 161-169. |
|
C. C. |
|
|
Counterfactual |
in mock |
assessments |
|||||||||||
|
R. |
L., Gaborit,M., |
& |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Wiener, |
|
|
Pritchard, |
(1994). |
|
thinking |
juror |
|||||||||||
of |
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
BehavioralSciences& the Law, 12, 89-102. |
|
||||||
|
negligence: |
preliminaryinvestigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiener, R. L., Habert, K., Shkodriani,G., & Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychologyof jury nullification:Predictingwhen jurors disobeythe law.Journalof AppliedSocial Psychology,21, 1379-1401.
314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hastie,Schkade,and Payne |
||
|
R. |
C. |
C., |
& |
M. |
|
of |
approvedjury |
instructions |
Wiener, |
L., Prichard, |
|
Weston, |
(1995).Comprehensibility |
|
||||
in |
|
murdercases.Journal |
|
455-467. |
|
|
|||
|
capital |
|
|
of AppliedPsychology,80, |
|
|
|
Wiggins,E. C., & Breckler,S. J. (1990). Specialverdictsas guides to jury decisionmaking.Law & PsychologyReview,14, 1-41.
Zeisel, H., & Diamond,S. S. (1976).Thejuryselectionin the Mitchell-Stans trial.American conspiracy
BarFoundationResearchJournal,1, 151-174.