The Experts below are selected from a list of 216 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Martin T Wells - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about three to five percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10% of tried cases that plaintiffs won. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30% these trials. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60%. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60% for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70% or more of the punitive award request outcomes, Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • the decision to award punitive damages an empirical study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10 percent of tried cases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes. 1 Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University; Heise is Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Waters is Senior Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts; Wells is Charles A. Alexander Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Cornell University Weill Medical College. The data analyzed here were gathered under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and are archived at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005, Study No. 23862. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not those of either the National Center for State Courts or of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany, at the 2009 meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools, and at the Poster Session of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. Eisenberg has analyzed the 2005 Civil Justice Survey data in connection with an expert report for the estate of a plaintiff with a possible punitive damages claim. Fall 2010: Volume 2, Number 2 ~ Journal of Legal Analysis ~ 577 Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • THE DECISION TO AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisinglyinfrequentlysought,withrequestsfound inabout 10 percentoftriedcases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes.

  • the predictability of punitive damages
    The Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian J Ostrom, David B Rottman, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Abstract Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in 25 years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois, and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability and medical malpractice. Punitive damages are most frequently awarded in business/contract cases and Intentional Tort cases. The frequency‐of‐award findings are consistent with all major studies of punitive damages.

  • the predictability of punitive damages
    1997
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian J Ostrom, David B Rottman, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in twenty-five years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages, and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability and medical malpractice. Punitive damages are most frequently awarded in business/ contract cases and Intentional Tort cases. The frequency-of-award findings are consistent with all major studies of punitive damages.

Theodore Eisenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about three to five percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10% of tried cases that plaintiffs won. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30% these trials. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60%. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60% for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70% or more of the punitive award request outcomes, Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • the decision to award punitive damages an empirical study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10 percent of tried cases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes. 1 Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University; Heise is Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Waters is Senior Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts; Wells is Charles A. Alexander Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Cornell University Weill Medical College. The data analyzed here were gathered under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and are archived at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005, Study No. 23862. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not those of either the National Center for State Courts or of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany, at the 2009 meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools, and at the Poster Session of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. Eisenberg has analyzed the 2005 Civil Justice Survey data in connection with an expert report for the estate of a plaintiff with a possible punitive damages claim. Fall 2010: Volume 2, Number 2 ~ Journal of Legal Analysis ~ 577 Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • THE DECISION TO AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisinglyinfrequentlysought,withrequestsfound inabout 10 percentoftriedcases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes.

  • the predictability of punitive damages
    The Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian J Ostrom, David B Rottman, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Abstract Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in 25 years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois, and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability and medical malpractice. Punitive damages are most frequently awarded in business/contract cases and Intentional Tort cases. The frequency‐of‐award findings are consistent with all major studies of punitive damages.

  • the predictability of punitive damages
    1997
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian J Ostrom, David B Rottman, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in twenty-five years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages, and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability and medical malpractice. Punitive damages are most frequently awarded in business/ contract cases and Intentional Tort cases. The frequency-of-award findings are consistent with all major studies of punitive damages.

Stephen J. Shapiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Shapiro
    Abstract:

    This Article advocates that states' statutes make greater and more systematic use of multiple damages by extending them to a much broader range of Intentional, wrongful conduct. Part II of this Article will explain why extra-compensatory relief is called for when Tortious conduct is Intentional or malicious. Part III will compare punitive damages, attorney fees, and treble or other multiple damages as possible sources of additional relief. Part IV will focus on multiple damages. The Article will examine the range of existing state statutes and discuss why and how those statutes might be extended to a broader range of wrongful behavior.

  • overcoming under compensation and under deterrence in Intentional Tort cases are statutory multiple damages the best remedy
    Mercer Law Review, 2011
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Shapiro
    Abstract:

    * Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law. Haverford College (B.A., 1971); University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D., 1976). Member, State Bar of Maryland. 1. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TortS § 901 (1979). The Restatement (Second) of Torts states that “the purpose[] for which actions of Tort are maintainable . . . are: (a) to give compensation, indemnity[,] or restitution for harms.” Id.; see also United States ex rel. Jones v. Rundle, 453 F.2d 147, 150 n.11 (3d Cir. 1971) (explaining that “[t]he underlying philosophy of Tort law . . . is that the plaintiff should be compensated for the harm he has suffered”); Seattle First Nat’l Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co., 588 P.2d 1308, 1312 (Wash. 1978) (stating that “[t]he cornerstone of Tort law is the assurance of full compensation to the injured party”); Walter H. Beckham, Jr. et al., Towards a Jurisprudence of Injury: The Continuing Creation of a System of Substantive Justice in American Tort Law, 1984 A.B.A. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE Tort LIABILITY SYSTEM 4-29 (naming compensation as “one of the main announced goals of Tort law”); E. ALAN FARNSWORTH, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES 113 (1983) (explaining that “[t]he essential purpose of the law of Torts is compensatory”); W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TortS § 4, at 20 (5th ed. 1984) (stating that “[a] recognized need for compensation is . . . a powerful factor influencing Tort law”). 2. See FARNSWORTH, supra note 1, at 113. Compensatory damages, also referred to as actual damages, see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 445 (9th ed. 2009), are the most common form of damages in the Tort-law system. Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., Disaggregating More-

Nicole L. Waters - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about three to five percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10% of tried cases that plaintiffs won. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30% these trials. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60%. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60% for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70% or more of the punitive award request outcomes, Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • the decision to award punitive damages an empirical study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10 percent of tried cases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes. 1 Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University; Heise is Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Waters is Senior Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts; Wells is Charles A. Alexander Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Cornell University Weill Medical College. The data analyzed here were gathered under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and are archived at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005, Study No. 23862. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not those of either the National Center for State Courts or of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany, at the 2009 meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools, and at the Poster Session of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. Eisenberg has analyzed the 2005 Civil Justice Survey data in connection with an expert report for the estate of a plaintiff with a possible punitive damages claim. Fall 2010: Volume 2, Number 2 ~ Journal of Legal Analysis ~ 577 Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • THE DECISION TO AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisinglyinfrequentlysought,withrequestsfound inabout 10 percentoftriedcases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes.

Michael Heise - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about three to five percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10% of tried cases that plaintiffs won. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30% these trials. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60%. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60% for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70% or more of the punitive award request outcomes, Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • the decision to award punitive damages an empirical study
    Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisingly infrequently sought, with requests found in about 10 percent of tried cases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes. 1 Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University; Heise is Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Waters is Senior Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts; Wells is Charles A. Alexander Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Cornell University Weill Medical College. The data analyzed here were gathered under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and are archived at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005, Study No. 23862. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not those of either the National Center for State Courts or of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany, at the 2009 meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools, and at the Poster Session of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. Eisenberg has analyzed the 2005 Civil Justice Survey data in connection with an expert report for the estate of a plaintiff with a possible punitive damages claim. Fall 2010: Volume 2, Number 2 ~ Journal of Legal Analysis ~ 577 Judge-jury differences in the rate of awards exist, with judges awarding punitive damages at a higher rate in personal injury cases and juries awarding them at a higher rate in nonpersonal injury cases. These puzzling adjudicator differences may be a consequence of the routing of different cases to judges and juries.

  • THE DECISION TO AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    2010
    Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Nicole L. Waters, Martin T Wells
    Abstract:

    Empirical studies have consistently shown that punitive damages are rarely awarded, with rates of about 3 to 5 percent of plaintiff trial wins. Using the 2005 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey, this article shows that knowing in which cases plaintiffs sought punitive damages transforms the picture of punitive damages. Not accounting for whether punitive damages were sought obscures the meaningful punitive damages rate, the rate of awards in cases in which they were sought, by a factor of nearly 10, and obfuscates a more explicable pattern of awards than has been reported. Punitive damages were surprisinglyinfrequentlysought,withrequestsfound inabout 10 percentoftriedcases that plaintiffs won. State laws restricting access to punitive damages were significantly associated with rates of seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in about 30 percent of the plaintiff trial wins in which they were sought. Awards were most frequent in cases of Intentional Tort, with a punitive award rate of over 60 percent. Greater harm corresponded to a greater probability of an award: the size of the compensatory award was significantly associated with whether punitive damages were awarded, with a rate of approximately 60 percent for cases with compensatory awards of $1 million or more. Regression models correctly classify about 70 percent or more of the punitive award request outcomes.