Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:14:02.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Small Claims Court: A Reconceptualization of Disputes and an Empirical Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Neil Vidmar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper disputes are seen as varying along a dimension of admitted liability, that is, the extent to which defendants admit some obligation to plaintiffs; they may admit no liability, partial liability, or full liability. This conceptualization was used in an empirical study of a small claims court. The results paint a portrait of the court that is at variance with most of the previous literature. Consumer issues constitute a substantial portion of the court caseload. On average, defendants, including individual consumers, do well when they dispute claims. Among disputed cases, small rather than large businesses predominate. Prior literature has suggested that, in comparison to adjudication, mediation of claims produces compromise outcomes and higher rates of compliance. This research shows that mediation yields a large percentage of all-or-none results, but to the extent that there is compromise and compliance, it can be partly ascribed to admitted liability characteristics. Some data on defaulted cases are also presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , 1984 , pp. 515 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Denver, Colorado, June 2, 1983. The research was generously supported by a grant from the Donner Canadian Foundation. The Psychology Department of the University of Western Ontario, under the guidance of Chairman William J. McClelland, also made an important contribution. I am deeply indebted to Judge Gordon Killeen and to Roy Edgecombe and Robert Harris for their help and cooperation. Without the able assistance of Judy Short, Pat Steele, and Marion Gerull this research could not have been carried out. Craig McEwen, Eric Steele, Austin Sarat, and Judge Killeen offered helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Editor Richard Lempert's substantive critique of the manuscript was extraordinary; my debt to him must be acknowledged.

References

AUBERT, Vilhelm (1967) “Courts and Conflict Resolution,” 11 Journal of Conflict Resolution 40.Google Scholar
BONN, Robert L. (1972) “The Predictability of Nonlegalistic Adjudication,” 6 Law & Society Review 563.Google Scholar
COATES, Dan and Steven, PENROD (1981) “Social Psychology and the Emergence of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 655.Google Scholar
EISENBERG, Melvin (1976) “Private Ordering Through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rule Making,” 89 Harvard Law Review 637.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William L. F. (1974) “Influences of Social Organization on Dispute Processing,” 9 Law & Society Review 63.Google Scholar
FULLER, Lon L. (1971) “Mediation—Its Forms and Functions,” 44 Southern California Law Review 305.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1975) “Afterword: Explaining Litigation,” 9 Law & Society Review 347.Google Scholar
GULLIVER, Philip (1979) Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
HILDEBRANDT, Kai, McNEELY, Brian and Peter P., MERCER (1982) “The Windsor Small Claims Court: An Empirical Study of Plaintiffs and Their Attitudes,” 2 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 87.Google Scholar
LEFF, Arthur (1970) “Injury, Ignorance and Spite—The Dynamics of Coercive Collection,” 80 Yale Law Journal 1.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig and Richard, MAIMAN (1981) “Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment,” 33 Maine Law Review 237.Google Scholar
Richard, MAIMAN-(1982) “Arbitration and Mediation as Alternatives to Court,” 10 Policy Studies Journal 712.Google Scholar
Richard, MAIMAN (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance Through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Review 11.Google Scholar
McINTYRE, Mary Ellen (1979) “Consumers and the Small Claims Courts.” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, The University of Guelph, Ontario.Google Scholar
MILLER, Richard and Austin, SARAT (1981) “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture,” 15 Law & Society Review 525.Google Scholar
ROHL, Klaus (1983) “The Judge as Mediator.” Working Paper 1983-9, Disputes Processing Research Program, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
RUHNKA, John and Steven, WELLER (1978) Small Claims Courts: A National Examination. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin (1976) “Alternatives in Dispute Processing: Litigation in a Small Claims Court,” 10 Law & Society Review 339.Google Scholar
SILBEY, Susan and Sally, MERRY (1982) “The Problems Shape the Process: Managing Disputes in Mediation and Court.” Paper presented at the Law and Society Meetings, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
STEELE, Eric (1981) “The Historical Context of Small Claims Courts,” 1981 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 295.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John and Laurens, WALKER (1975) Procedural Justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David, SARAT, Austin, FELSTINER, William, KRITZER, Herbert and Joel, GROSSMAN (1983) “The Costs of Ordinary Litigation.” Working Paper 1983-5, Disputes Processing Research Program, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil (1981a) “Justice Motives and Other Psychological Factors in the Development and Resolution of Disputes,” in Lerner, M. and Lerner, S. (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lerner, S. (1981b) “Observations on Dispute Dynamics and Resolution Hearing Outcomes in a Small Claims Court,” in Lloyd-Bostock, S. (ed.), Law and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Centre for Socio-legal Studies.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil and Judith, SHORT (1984) “Social Psychological Dynamics in the Settlement of Small Claims Court Cases,” in Muller, D. J., Blackman, D. E. and Chapman, A. J. (eds.), Psychology and Law. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
YNGVESSON, Barbara and Patricia, HENNESSEY (1975) “Small Claims, Complex Disputes: A Review of the Small Claims Literature,” 9 Law & Society Review 219.Google Scholar