Empirical Evidence on the Deep Pockets Hypothesis: Jury Awards for Pain and Suffering in Medical Malpractice Cases

This chapter offers an empirical analysis of fiduciary law, focusing on whether fiduciaries react to changes in fiduciary standards and which fiduciary rules maximize social welfare. Empirical studies of fiduciary law across three areas are discussed: corporate governance, fiduciary investment, and medical malpractice. The chapter considers fiduciary principles in corporate governance by looking at the duties of care and loyalty, citing empirical evidence implying that fiduciary duties in the corporate governance context influence corporate decision-making. It also examines the law of fiduciary investment, drawing on empirical evidence across three key areas: the implementation of the Prudent Investor Rule in private trusts, management of charitable trusts and prudent distributions, and the consequences of potentially conflicted advice to retirement savers. Finally, it explores the duty of care in the context of medical provider-patient relationships and the duty of loyalty in physician-client relationships.

Download Full-text

Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards

JAMA ◽

10.1001/jama.1996.03540150068037 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 276 (15) ◽

pp. 1266

Author(s):

Frank T. Flannery

Keyword(s):

Medical Malpractice ◽

Damage Awards ◽

Deep Pockets

Download Full-text

No-Fault Versus Strict Liability Compensation Systems in Medical Malpractice Law in Vietnam in Comparision with Belgium, France, and England

Asian Journal of Law and Economics ◽

10.1515/ajle-2018-0004 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Thi Bao Anh Nguyen

Keyword(s):

Medical Malpractice ◽

Strict Liability ◽

Tort Law ◽

Compensation System ◽

Compensation Systems ◽

Malpractice Law ◽

Tort System ◽

Pain And Suffering ◽

Fault Compensation ◽

Uniform Manner

Abstract Medical malpractice is a form of professional negligence and such a negligence forms part of the law of tort. As an alternative to the tort or fault-based system in medical malpractice, a no-fault compensation system has been viewed as having the potential to overcome problems inherent in the tort system. This is through the provision of fair, speedy and adequate compensation for medically injured victims. A no-fault compensation system allows patients to be compensated without proof of provider’s fault or negligence. Similar to no-fault schemes, the strict liability system is not fault-based although it belongs to tort law. Successful claims are paid in a uniform manner using a fixed benefits schedule and include compensation for both economic and non-economic (pain and suffering losses) without the necessity of proving negligence through a tort claim. This study focuses on the comparison of no-fault compensation systems versus strict liability systems between Vietnam to Belgium, France, and England. The distinctions in Belgium, France, and England can be the lessons for the development of a no-fault compensation system as well as strict liability system in Vietnam.

Download Full-text

Psychological and structural bias in civil jury awards

Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research ◽

10.1108/jacpr-09-2015-0190 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 247-257 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Erik Girvan ◽

Heather J. Marek

Keyword(s):

Impact Damage ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Demographic Information ◽

Data Set ◽

Methodological Innovation ◽

Content Type ◽

Pain And Suffering ◽

Race Ethnicity ◽

Jury Awards ◽

Psychological Bias

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it proposes a basic organizing framework for when a plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, or sex may impact civil jury awards. The framework takes into account psychological and structural sources of bias and the ways in which they may interact when jurors have more or less discretion. Second, the paper employs a methodological innovation to overcome one of the primary barriers to empirical field research on bias in civil legal decisions: the absence of plaintiff demographic information. Design/methodology/approach The data set is comprised of jury verdicts in tort cases combined with information from the US Census Bureau regarding race and ethnicity. Statistical tests measure the relationships between race, ethnicity, sex, and awards for economic damages and pain and suffering. Findings Overall, the results were consistent with the psycho-structural framework. Where jurors had discretion (i.e. pain and suffering damages), they awarded less to black plaintiffs than to white plaintiffs, indicating potential psychological bias. Where jurors had little discretion (i.e. lost income) they awarded less to female plaintiffs and more to Asian plaintiffs than to male and white plaintiffs, respectively, a potential reflection of structural income disparities. Thus, the framework and method have promise for exploring relationships between structural and psychological bias and differential civil jury awards. Originality/value Because demographic information is not easily available, there is very little research on race and gender bias in civil cases. This study introduces and provides a conceptual test of a novel framework for when bias is most likely to impact damage awards in these cases and tests it using advances in social demography that can help researchers overcome this barrier.

Download Full-text