Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:47:00.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

37 - Tort Law Decision-Making

Psychological and Legal Perspectives

from Part V - Other Legal Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Valerie P. Hans  and
Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter takes a psychological perspective on tort law decision-making, drawing on psychological theory, empirical research, and legal practices in tort litigation to assess the state of knowledge about decision-making in tort cases. It examines how plaintiffs decide to bring a lawsuit, how defendants respond, and the process of dispute resolution in tort cases. Most tort cases do not go to trial, but trial decisions remain significant as a framework for negotiations. The chapter also draws on psychological theory and research to describe how the judge and the jury as decision-makers resolve legal issues and reach liability verdicts and damage awards in tort cases. Psychological heuristics, biases, and other psychological phenomena affect decision-making in intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability cases, and judgments about liability and damages. The chapter closes with suggestions for further investigations of understudied topics in tort law decision-making.

Keywords

damage awardsdispute resolutionforeseeabilityintentionalityjudgejuryliabilitynegligencereasonablenessstrict liability
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 567 - 581
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Administrative Office of the US Courts (2021). US district courts – Judicial business 2020. www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-district-courts-judicial-business-2020.Google Scholar
Albiston, C., Edelman, L. B., & Milligan, J. (2014). The dispute tree and the legal forest. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030826.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556.Google Scholar
Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Intentional harms are worse, even when they’re not. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1755–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480507.Google Scholar
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1994). Reference points and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1070.Google Scholar
Bavli, H. J., & Mozer, R. (2019). The effects of comparable-case guidance on awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Yale Law & Policy Review, 37, 405–458.Google Scholar
Bovbjerg, R. R., Sloan, F. A., & Blumstein, J. F. (1989). Valuing life and limb in tort: Scheduling pain and suffering. Northwestern University Law Review, 83, 908–976.Google Scholar
Burch, E. C. (2019). Mass tort deals: Backroom bargaining in multidistrict litigation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burch, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2022). Perceptions of justice in multidistrict litigation: Voices from the crowd. Cornell Law Review, 107(7), 1835–1925.Google Scholar
Bystranowski, P., Bartosz, J., Próchnicki, , & Skórska, P. (2021). Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000438.Google Scholar
Cantone, J. A. (2020). Counterfactual thinking, causation, and covariation in mock juror assessments of negligence: Twenty-five years later. Psychological Reports, 123, 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118816945.Google Scholar
Cecil, J. S., Rindskopf, D., Eyre, R. N., & Miletich, D. (2007). A quarter-century of summary judgment practice in six federal district courts, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 861–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00109.x.Google Scholar
Chua, L. J. & Engel, D. M. (2019). Legal consciousness reconsidered. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042717.Google Scholar
Coates, D., & Penrod, S. (1980–1981). Social psychology and the emergence of disputes. Law & Society Review, 15, 655–680. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053506.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. R. (1999). Advising clients to apologize. Southern California Law Review, 72, 1009–1069. http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/648.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. R. (2005). The culture of legal denial. Nebraska Law Review, 84, 247–312. http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/39.Google Scholar
Cohen, T. H. (2009). Tort bench and jury trials in state courts, 2005. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Cohen, T. H., & Harbacek, K. (2011). Punitive damage awards in state courts, 2005. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Court Statistics Project (2020). State Court Caseload Digest: 2018 Data. National Center for State Courts. www.courtstatistics.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/40820/2018-Digest.pdf.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M. (2001). Citizens’ sense of justice and the legal system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00103.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., & Huff, C. W. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of the intentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00898.x.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M. & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Heise, M., Waters, N. L., & Wells, M. T. (2010). The decision to award punitive damages: An empirical study. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(2), 577–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/2.2.577.Google Scholar
Engel, D. M. (2016). The myth of the litigious society: Why we don’t sue. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming … Law & Society Review, 15, 631–654. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053505.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. (1984). Worlds of deals: Using negotiation to teach about legal process. Journal of Legal Education, 34, 268–276. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42892685.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers’ ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019060.Google Scholar
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10464-000.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C. (2000). Framing frivolous litigation: A psychological theory. University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 163–216. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review, 93, 1–43. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/917.Google Scholar
Hadfield, G. K. (2008). Framing the choice between cash and the courthouse: Experiences with the 9/11 compensation fund. Law and Society Review, 42, 645–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00354.x.Google Scholar
Hannaford-Agor, P., Graves, S., & Miller, S. (2015). The landscape of civil litigation in state courts. National Center for State Courts. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2700745.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Helm, R. K., & Reyna, V. F. (2018). From meaning to money: Translating injury into dollars. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000282.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Reed, K. M., Reyna, V. R., Garavito, D., & Helm, R. K. (2022). Guiding jurors’ damage award decisions: Experimental investigations of approaches based on theory and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000342.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2011). To dollars from sense: Qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01233.x.Google Scholar
Helm, R. K., Hans, V. P., Reyna, V. R., & Reed, K. (2020). Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaning, and damage award decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3629.Google Scholar
Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2012). An intentionality bias in social judgment: Its precursors and consequences. Paper presented at the 24th annual convention of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Hyman, D. (2006). Rescue without law: An empirical perspective on the duty to rescue. Texas Law Review, 84, 653–737.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., & Braman, D. (2009). Whose eyes are you going to believe? Scott v. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review, 122, 837–906. https://harvardlawreview.org/2009/04/whose-eyes-are-you-going-to-believe-scott-v-harris-and-the-perils-of-cognitive-illiberalism/.Google Scholar
Kamin, K. A. & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499075.Google Scholar
Karlovac, M. & Darley, J. M. (1988). Attribution of responsibility for accidents: A negligence law analogy. Social Cognition, 6, 287–318. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1988.6.4.287.Google Scholar
Korobkin, R., & Guthrie, C. (1994). Psychological barriers to litigation settlement: An experimental approach. Michigan Law Review, 93, 107–192. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss1/3.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. (1997). Contingency fee lawyers as gatekeepers in the civil justice system. Judicature, 81, 22–29.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. (2007). Defending torts: What should we know? Journal of Tort Law, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-9148.1047.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. (2011). The antecedents of disputes: Complaining and claiming. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 1. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/6.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the deep-pockets hypothesis. Law & Society Review, 30, 121–161.Google Scholar
Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.1314.Google Scholar
Miller, R. E., & Sarat, A. (1981). Grievances, claims, and disputes: Assessing the adversary culture. Law and Society Review, 15, 525–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053502.Google Scholar
Mott, N. L., Hans, V. P., & Simpson, L. (2000). What’s half a lung worth? Civil jurors’ accounts of their award decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005540229224.Google Scholar
Prescott, J. J. & Spier, K. E. (2016). A comprehensive theory of civil settlement. NYU Law Review, 91, 59–143. www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-91-number-1/a-comprehensive-theory-of-civil-settlement/.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. (1996). Gains, losses and the psychology of litigation. Southern California Law Review, 70, 113–186. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/795.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. (2003). Misunderstanding ability, misallocating responsibility. Brooklyn Law Review, 68, 1055–1092. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol68/iss4/.Google Scholar
Rahmati, M., Hyman, D. A., Black, B., Liu, J., & Silver, S. (2018). Screening plaintiffs and selecting defendants in medical malpractice litigation: Evidence from Illinois and Indiana. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 15, 41–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12173.Google Scholar
Reed, K., Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2019). Accounting for awards: An examination of juror reasoning behind pain and suffering damage award decisions. Denver Law Review, 96, 841–867.Google Scholar
Relis, T. (2009). Perceptions in litigation and mediation: Lawyers, defendants, plaintiffs, and gendered parties. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harms (2010). American Law Institute.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575–2609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2003). Apologies and legal settlement. Michigan Law Review, 102, 460–516.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2006). Apologies and settlement levers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3(2), 333–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00072.x.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2008). Attorneys, apologies, and settlement negotiation. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 13, 349–398.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2014). Litigation and settlement. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), Handbook on behavioral economics and the law (pp. 623–642). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Eisenberg, T. (2017). Juries compared with what? The need for a baseline and attention to real-world complexity. In Kovera, M. B. (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 109–129). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-006.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The psychology of tort law. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. & Sternlight, J. R. (2021). Psychology for lawyers: Understanding the human factors in negotiation, litigation, and decision making (2nd ed.). American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Westview Press.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system – and why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147–1292. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312403.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834614312.Google Scholar
Sanders, J., Kugler, M. B., Solan, L. M., & Darley, J. M. (2014). Must torts be wrongs? An empirical perspective. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 1–45.Google Scholar
Scott v. Harris, 550 US 372 (2007).Google Scholar
Sevier, J. (2017). Vicarious windfalls. Iowa Law Review, 102, 651–707. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-102-issue-2/vicarious-windfalls/.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P. (2018). How people judge what is reasonable. Alabama Law Review, 70, 293–359. www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2018/12/1-Tobia-293-359.pdf.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2015). The psychology of aggregation: Promise and potential pitfalls. DePaul Law Review, 64, 711–736. https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol64/iss2/20/.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. & Schuller, R. A. (1987). Individual differences and the pursuit of legal rights: A preliminary inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044743.Google Scholar
Wiener, R. L., Gaborit, M., Pritchard, C. C., et al. (1994). Counterfactual thinking in mock juror assessments of negligence: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370120108.Google Scholar
Wilking, E. (2022). Independent contractors in law and in fact: Evidence from US tax returns. Northwestern University Law Review, 117(3), 731–820.Google Scholar
Williams, M. S., & Cantone, J. A. (2020). An empirical evaluation of proposed civil rules for multidistrict litigation. Georgia Law Review, 55, 221–286. www.georgialawreview.org/article/18635-an-empirical-evaluation-of-proposed-civil-rules-for-multidistrict-litigation.Google Scholar
Witman, A. B., Park, D. M., & Hardin, S. B. (1996). How do patients want physicians to handle mistakes? Archives of Internal Medicine, 156, 2565–2569. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1996.00440210083008.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×