Abstract
A study was carried out to explore the effects of two variables on the amount of pain and suffering awards in a product liability litigation context. The first variable was the level of liability/responsibility allocated to the plaintiff and defendant for the accident and injury. The two levels were 100% and 60% assigned to the defendant, with the corresponding levels for the plaintiff at 0% and 40%. The second variable was the severity of the injury which was characterized as high or low. The two variables were manipulated between participants, resulting in a 2 × 2 design. Four separate accident/injury scenarios were employed, and each participant was presented with all four scenarios in one of the conditions. The scenarios described an automobile accident resulting in paralysis, a workplace accident resulting in chemical burns, a workplace accident resulting in brain damage, and an automobile accident resulting in the death of a small child. Following the presentation of each scenario, participants were asked to make a pain and suffering award. There were no constraints, small or large, on the size of the awards. Results indicated significant differences in pain and suffering allocations for the two levels of liability/responsibility (means in dollars were: defendant 100% = 4.0 million, defendant 60% = 1.2 million). While the means were in the expected direction for the high and low injury severity manipulation (high = 3.2 million, low = 2.0 million) the difference in pain and suffering allocations was not significant. The results suggest that liability or fault may play an important role in pain and suffering awards, a finding of significance in understanding jury decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.