Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1979)
Restatement (second) of torts
W. Viscusi (1988)
Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards?International Review of Law and Economics, 8
S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic (1971)
Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89
E. King, James Smith (1988)
Economic loss and compensation in aviation accidents
M. Saks (1992)
Do We Really Know Anything About the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System-And Why NotUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140
J. Sanders, C. Joyce (1990)
Off to the races: The 1980s tort crisis and the law reform processHouston Law Review, 27
R. Litan (1993)
Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System
P. Weiler (1991)
Medical malpractice on trial
S. Diamond, Jonathan Casper, Lynne Ostergren (1989)
Blindfolding the JuryLaw and contemporary problems, 52
S. Daniels, Joanne Martin (1995)
Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform
S. Diamond, Jonathan Casper (1992)
Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil JuryLaw & Society Review, 26
N. Vidmar (1995)
Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths about Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
M. Peterson (1987)
Civil juries in the 1980s : trends in jury trials and verdicts in California and Cook County, Illinois
G. Calabresi (1971)
The costs of accidents : a legal and economic analysisHarvard Law Review, 84
J. A. Stein (1991)
Stein on personal injury damages
M. Peterson (1984)
Compensation of injuries : civil jury verdicts in Cook County
S. Daniels (1989)
The Question of Jury Competence and the Politics of Civil Justice Reform: Symbols, Rhetoric, and Agenda-BuildingLaw and contemporary problems, 52
N. Vidmar (1994)
Making inferences about jury behavior from jury verdict statisticsLaw and Human Behavior, 18
Verlin Hinsz, Kristin Indahl (1995)
Assimilation to Anchors for Damage Awards in a Mock Civil Trial1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25
W. Buckland, H. Hotelling, I. Olkin (1960)
Contributions to Probability and Statistics
R. Bovbjerg, F. A. Sloan, J. F. Blumstein (1989)
Valuing life and limb in tort: Scheduling “Pain and Suffering.”Northwestern University Law Review, 83
A. Conard, J. Morgan, R. Pratt, Charles Voltz, R. Bombaugh (1965)
Automobile accident costs and payments : studies in the economics of injury reparationJournal of Risk and Insurance, 32
F. Sloan, C. Hsieh (1990)
Variability in Medical Malpractice Payments: Is the Compensation Fair?Law & Society Review, 24
D. Baldus, J. MacQueen, G. Woodworth (1995)
Improving judicial oversight of jury damages assessments: A proposal for the comparative additur/remittitur review of awards for nonpecuniary harms and punitive damagesIowa Law Review, 80
H. Levene (1961)
Robust tests for equality of variances
B. J. Ostrom, D. B. Rottman, J. A. Goerdt (1996)
A step above anecdotes: A profile of the civil jury in the 1990'sJudicature, 79
H. Bernstein, D. Horowitz, David Lange, H. Powell, Melvin Shimm, J. Weistart, R. Danner, Claire Germain, B. Baccari, Lisa Eichhorn, James Farrin, K. Cashion, Steven Chabinsky, Thomas Contois, James Glenister, Stephen Armitage, J. Cannon, C. Connolly, David Dabbs, Katherine Flanagan, P. Franklin, Donald Nielsen, Christopher Hart, Charles North, William O'Neil, Jane Schaefer, Eric Lieberman, Janet Moore, A. Walsh, Raymond Wierciszewski (1990)
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS
N. Vidmar (1994)
Making inferences about jury behavior from jury verdict statistics: Cautions about the Lorelei's liedLaw & Human Behavior, 18
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.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 1, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.