Crisis, What Crisis? Perception and Reality in Civil Justice

  • Brian H. Bornstein
  • Timothy R. Robicheaux


Medical Malpractice Punitive Damage Damage Award Tort Reform Civil Justice 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Medical Association Crisis Map. (n.d.). Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  2. The American Tort Reform Association. “About Us” page. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  3. Americans for Insurance Reform. (2004). Subject: Urgent action required by insurance commissioners to end price-gouging. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  4. Associated Press. (2005). Judge nixes viewer’s “Fear Factor” lawsuit. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from:,2933,150034,00.html.Google Scholar
  5. Bailis, D.S., & MacCoun, R.J. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of tort litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldus, D., MacQueen, J.C., & Woodworth, G. (1995). Improving judicial oversight of jury damage assessments: A proposal for the comparative additur/remitittitur of awards for nonpecuniary harms and punitive damages. Iowa Law Review, 80, 1009–1267.Google Scholar
  7. Black, B., Silver, C., Hyman, D.A., & Sage, W.M. (2005).Stability, not crisis: Medical malpractice claim outcomes in Texas, 1988–2002. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 207–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boatright, R.G. (2001). Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 285–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bovbjerg, R.R., Sloan, F.A., & Blumstein, J.F. (1989). Valuing life and limb in torts: Scheduling “pain and suffering.” Northwestern University Law Review, 83, 908–976.Google Scholar
  10. Bovbjerg, R.R., Sloan, F.A., Dor, A., & Hsieh, C.R. (1991). Juries and justice: Are malpractice and other personal injuries created equal? Law and Contemporary Problems, 54, 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, R.P. (2003). A conservative perspective on the future of the American jury trial. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1319–1357.Google Scholar
  12. Congressional Budget Office. (2004). Limiting tort liability for medical malpractice. Retrieved on April 2, 2007, from: Scholar
  13. CNN Wire. (2006). Friday, April 26 (Merck found liable in latest Vioxx verdict). Retrieved on April 2, 2007, from: Scholar
  14. Dann, B.M. (2003). Jurors and the future of “tort reform.” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1127–1142.Google Scholar
  15. Denicola, L. (n.d.). Physicians protest cost of malpractice insurance: Rising fees have doctors calling for legislative reforms. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  16. Diamond, S.S., & Bina, J. (2004). Puzzles about supply-side explanations for vanishing trials: A new look at fundamentals. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, T., Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M.T. (1997). The predictability of punitive damages. Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 623–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenberg, T., LaFountain, N., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., & Wells, M.T. (2002). Judges, juries, and punitive damages: An empirical study. Cornell Law Review, 87, 743–780.Google Scholar
  19. Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P.L., Hans, V.P., Waters, N.L., Munsterman, G.T., Schwab, S.J., & Wells, M.T. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P.L., Heise, M., LaFountain, N., Munsterman, G.T., Ostrom, B., & Wells, M.T. (2006). Juries, judges, and punitive damages: Empirical analyses using the civil justice survey of state courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 data. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faigman, D.L. (1999). Legal alchemy: The use and misuse of science in the law. New York: W.H.Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Faigman, D.L., Kaye, D.H., Saks, M.J., & Sanders, J. (2002). Science in the law: Social and behavioral science issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
  23. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  24. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I.A., & Bourgeois, M. (1994). Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galanter, M. (1990). The civil jury as regulator of the litigation process. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 201–271.Google Scholar
  26. Galanter, M. (1998).An oil strike in hell: Contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Review, 40, 717–752.Google Scholar
  27. Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galanter, M., & Luban, D. (1993). Poetic justice: Punitive damages and legal pluralism. American University Law Review, 42, 1393–1463.Google Scholar
  29. Garber, S., & Adams, J. (1998). Product and stock market responses to automotive product liability verdicts. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1–44.Google Scholar
  30. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, public policy, and law, 6, 743–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  32. Greene, E., Coon, D., & Bornstein, B.H. (2001). The effects of limiting punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 217–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greve Jr., P.A. (2002). Anticipating and controlling rising malpractice insurance costs. Healthcare Financial Management, 56, 50–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Halton, W., & McCann, M. (2004). Distorting the law: Politics, media, and the litigation crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hans, V.P. (2000).Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hans, V.P. (Ed.) (2006). The jury system: Contemporary scholarship. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Hays, K., & Agovino, T. (2005). Jury awards widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial. Retrievedon June 19, 2007 from: article=1.Google Scholar
  38. Herbert, B. (2004). Medical malpractice lawsuits: Do we have a crisis or insurance industry sham? Originally published in the New York Times (2004, June 25). Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  39. Hersch, J., & Viscusi, W.K. (2004). Punitive damages: How judges and juries perform. Journal of Legal Studies, 33, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hyman, D.A., Black, B., Zeiler, K., Silver, C., & Sage, W.M. (2007). Do defendants pay what juries award? Post-verdict haircuts in Texas medical malpractice cases, 1988–2003. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 3–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalven, H. (1958). The jury, the law, and the personal injury damage award. Ohio State Law Journal, 19, 158–178.Google Scholar
  43. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  44. Kessler, D.P., Sage, W.M., & Becker, D.J. (2005). Impact of malpractice reforms on the supply of physician services. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 2618–2625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Landsman, S. (2004). So what? Possible implications of the vanishing trial phenomenon. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 973–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Litan, R.E. (Ed.) (1993). Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  47. Litan, R.E., & Winston, C. (Eds.) (1988). Liability: Perspectives and policy. Washington, DC: Өe Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  48. MacCoun, R.J. (2006). Media reporting of jury verdicts: Is the tail (of the distribution) wagging the dog? DePaul University Law Review, 55, 539–562.Google Scholar
  49. Marcus, B. (2004). America’s litigation crisis. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from Center for Individual Freedom Web site: Scholar
  50. Marder, N. (2003). Introduction to The Jury at a crossroad: The American experience. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 909–933.Google Scholar
  51. Marder, N. (2005). The medical malpractice debate: The jury as scapegoat. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 38, 1267–1296.Google Scholar
  52. Marder, N. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–511.Google Scholar
  53. Metzloff, T.B. (1991). Resolving malpractice disputes: Imaging the jury’s shadow. Law and Contemporary Problems, 54, 43–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, M.K., & Bornstein, B.H. (2004). Juror stress: Causes and interventions. Thurgood Marshall Law Review, 30, 237–269.Google Scholar
  55. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (2005). Social Science in Law (6th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mott, N.L. (2003). The current debate on juror questions: “To ask or not to ask, that is the question.” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1099–1125.Google Scholar
  57. Ostrom, B.J., Rottman, D.B., & Goerdt, J.A. (1996). A step above anecdote: A profile of the civil jury in the 1990s. Judicature, 79, 233–241.Google Scholar
  58. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 701 N.W. 2d 440 (Wisc. 2005).Google Scholar
  59. Robbennolt, J.K. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 315–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robbennolt, J.K. (2005). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469–509.Google Scholar
  61. Robbennolt, J.K., & Studebaker, C.A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robbennolt, J.K., & Studebaker, C.A. (2003). News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 5–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rustad, M.L. (1998). Unraveling punitive damages: Current data and further inquiry. Wisconsin Law Review, 15–69.Google Scholar
  64. Saks, M.J. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation. American Psychologist, 44, 1110–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seabury, S.A., Pace, N.M., & Reville, R.T. (2004). Forty years of civil jury verdicts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sentell, R.P. (1991). The Georgia jury and negligence: The view from the bench. Georgia Law Review, 26, 85–178.Google Scholar
  68. Sharkey, C.M. (2005). Unintended consequences of medical malpractice damages caps. New York University Law Review, 80, 391–512.Google Scholar
  69. Sloan, F.A., & Hsieh, C.R. (1990). Variability if medical malpractice payments: Is the compensation fair? Law and Society Review, 24, 997–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sloan, F.A., Reilly, B.A., & Schenzler, C. (1995). Effects of tort liability and insurance on heavy drinking and driving and driving. Journal of Law and Economics, 38, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sloan, F.A., & van Wert, S.S. (1991). Cost and compensation of injuries in medical malpractice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 54, 131–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. VandeWater, J. (2004). Missouri insurance department says malpractice claims hit new lows in 2003. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (April 17, 2004). Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  73. Vidmar, N. (1998). The performance of the American civil jury: An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review, 40, 849–899.Google Scholar
  74. Vidmar, N., Gross, F., & Rose, M. (1998). Jury awards for medical malpractice and post-verdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Review, 48, 265–299.Google Scholar
  75. Vidmar, N., & Hans, V.P. (in press). American juries: The verdict. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  76. Viscusi, W.K. (2004). The blockbuster punitive damages awards. Emory Law Journal, 53, 1405–1455.Google Scholar
  77. Vioxx Trial Scorecard. (2006). Retrieved on April 2, 2007 from: Scholar
  78. Waters, T.M., Budetti, P.P., Claxton, G., & Lundy J.P. (2007). Impact of state tort reforms on physician malpractice payments. Health Affairs, 26, 500–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian H. Bornstein
    • 1
  • Timothy R. Robicheaux
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincoln

Personalised recommendations