Premium
Damage awards and jurors' responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases
Author(s) -
Vidmar Neil,
Lee Jessica,
Cohen Elaina,
Stewart Anne
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/bsl.2370120205
Subject(s) - plaintiff , damages , tort , malpractice , medical malpractice , personal injury , medical negligence , tort reform , test (biology) , psychology , law , pain and suffering , medicine , medical emergency , liability , political science , paleontology , biology
Many critics of the tort system have accused juries of assessing larger awards against defendants perceived to have the ability to pay. Juries are said to be particularly prone to go after the [deep pockets] of doctors in medical malpractice cases as compared to defendants found negligent in automobile accidents. This hypothesis was put to a test in an experiment that manipulated cause of the injury (medical malpractice versus negligent driving) and degree of possible contributing responsibility by the plaintiff (mandatory versus elective surgery and plaintiff as another driver or as a passenger). Responsibility ascriptions to the plaintiff differed across conditions, but jurors did not differentially award pain and suffering damages across conditions.