| Popis: |
Among businesspeople, attorneys, and the general public, conventional wisdom holds that juries function as modern-day Robin Hoods, systematically redistributing wealth from wealthy corporate defendants to individual plaintiffs regardless of fault. Empirical studies attempting to refute or verify this “deep pockets hypothesis” have produced mixed results. Experimental studies tend to suggest that the Robin Hood jury is a myth, whereas archival studies of verdicts in actual cases tend to support the proposition that defendant identity has a significant influence on case outcomes. Using data on automobile tort and premises liability jury trials held in 160 state courts during 2005, and introducing controls for the severity of the plaintiff’s claimed injury, this study provides additional evidence of a defendant identity effect on both the liability decision and the amount of damages awarded. |
