Negligence Law and Mental Mutation

A Social Inference Model of Apportioning Fault
  • Richard L. Wiener
  • Christine C. Pritchard
Part of the Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues book series (SPAS, volume 3)

Abstract

In thinking about this accident, most people are quickly drawn to the financial hardship that Mr. Evans suffered. Under most states’ workmen’s compensation laws, restitution for Mr. Evans’ injury would be forthcoming from state insurance paid for by the private contractor, Waldon Company (Dobbs, 1985, p. 742). However, workmen’s compensation statutes limit liability to fixed amounts for specific injuries and percentages of lost wages. In order to be compensated for his pain and suffering, Mr. Evans would have to show, in a court of law, that River City Mall was negligent when it failed to provide a safe working environment and therefore was at fault for the accident (Dobbs, 1985). In a case like Evans v. River City Mall, the central tasks for the trier of fact (i.e., judge or jury) are to weigh the evidence, apply the law, and attribute fault among the deserving parties.

Keywords

Counterfactual Thinking River City Delivery Truck Ordinary Care Social Inference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Butterfield v. Forester, 11 East. 59, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (1809).Google Scholar
  2. Curran, C. (1985). The spread of the comparative negligence rule in the United States. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dobbs, D. B. (1985). Torts and compensation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Gavanski, I., & Wells, G. (1989). Counterfactual processing of normal and exceptional events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gleicher, E., Kost, K., Baker, S., Strathman, A., Richman, S., & Sherman, S. (1990). The role of counterfactual thinking in judgments of affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansbrough v. Kosyak, 141 Ill. App.3d 538, 490 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. App. 4 dist. 1986).Google Scholar
  8. Harper, E. V., James, E, & Gray, O. S. (1986). The law of torts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  9. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1973).Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, J. T. (1986). The knowledge of what might have been: Affective and attributional conse quences of near outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, J. T., & Drobny, J. (1985). Proximity biases in the attribution of civil liability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, J. T., & Drobny, J. (1987). Happening soon and happening later: Temporal cues and attributions of liability. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, J. T., Ogawa, K. H., Delforge, A., & Early, D. (1989). Causal primacy and comparative fault: The effect of position in a causal chain on judgments of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaatz v. State, 540 R2d 1037 (Alaska 1975).Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Ed.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, R Slovic, & A. Tversky (Ed.), Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Varey, C. A. (1990). Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1101–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landman, J. (1987). Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 524–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lipe, M. G. (1991). Counterfactual reasoning as a framework for attribution theories. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 456–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co. v. Fisher, 357 S.W2d 683 (Ky. 1962).Google Scholar
  22. Maki v. Fralk, 239 N.E.2d 445 (Ill. 1967).Google Scholar
  23. Macrae, C. N. (1992). A tale of two curries: Counterfactual thinking and accident-related judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, D. T., & Gunasegaram, S. (1990). Temporal order and perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1111–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test of norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, D. T., & Tlirnbull, W (1990). The counterfactual fallacy: Confusing what might have been with what ought to have been. Social Justice Research, 4, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, D. T., Tlirnbull, W, & McFarland, C. (1989). When a coincidence is suspicious: The role of mental simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W, & McFarland, C. (1990). Counterfactual thinking and social perception: Thinking about what might have been. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Missouri Approved Jury Instructions (1981). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  30. Placek v. Sterling Heights, 275 N.W. 2d 511 (Mich. 1979).Google Scholar
  31. Poythress, N. G., Wiener, R., Schumacher, J. E. (1992). Reframing the medical malpractice tort reform debate: Social science research implications for non-economic reforms. Law and Psychology Review, 16, 65–112.Google Scholar
  32. Prosser, W., & Keeton, P. (1984). Torts (1984). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 299A, (1965).Google Scholar
  33. Staebler, C. R. (1992). Counterfactual thinking and negligence law. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  34. T. J. Hooper, 60 E2d 737 (2nd Cir, 1947).Google Scholar
  35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wells, G. L., Taylor, B. R., & Turtle, J. W. (1987). The undoing of scenarios. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiener, R. L. (1993). Social analytic jurisprudence and tort law: Social cognition goes to court. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 37, 503–551.Google Scholar
  39. Wiener, R. L., Gaborit, M., Pritchard, C. C., McDonough, E. M., Staebler, C. R., Wiley, D. C., & Goldkamp, K. S. (1994). Counterfactual thinking in mock juror assessments of negligence: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Science and Law, 12, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiener, R. L., & Small, M. A. (1992). Social cognition and tort law: The roles of basic science and social engineering. In D. K. Kagehiro & W S. Laufer (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology and Law. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Yates, J. E. (1990). Judgment under decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc., 1990 W.L. 41637 (Mo. App. 1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Wiener
    • 1
  • Christine C. Pritchard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySt. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations