Punitive damages and tort reform: The damage award decisions of citizens and judges

Fueled by anecdotal instances of extremely large damage awards, there has been significant public controversy over the efficacy of the civil justice system. In particular, the civil jury and civil damage awards have suffered much criticism. Nonetheless, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries make their damage awards. As a result, relatively little is known about the strategies or cognitive processes used by jurors in determining damages. Similarly, little is known about the damage award decision making of judges. However, in response to perceptions that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One of these reforms consists of allocating the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. These reforms are currently being enacted without the benefit of empirical research about their intended and unintended effects. The present study explored the determination of punitive damages by jurors and judges. Participants\u27 use of information about the severity of the actual and potential injury to the plaintiff and the defendant\u27s wealth were examined. The study compared the decisions of jury-eligible citizens and judges and compared the decisions of both groups to an ideal standard, facilitating a more reasoned examination of policy in this area and adding to our limited knowledge about how the decision making of judges and jurors compares in general. The damages awarded by jurors and judges were of similar magnitude, although in some instances the awards made by jurors were somewhat more variable than the awards made by judges. Although judges and jurors differed in their attitudes toward the civil justice system and in their perceptions of the size and frequency of typical jury damage awards, these differences, generally, did not translate into differences in awards. Moreover, both groups of participants appropriately utilized information about the severity of the injury and the wealth of the defendant in making their compensatory and punitive damage awards