IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v12y2015i1p128-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: An Empirical Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yun‐chien Chang
  • Theodore Eisenberg
  • Han‐Wei Ho
  • Martin T. Wells

Abstract

Most jurisdictions in the United States award pain and suffering damages to spouses of victims in wrongful death cases. In several East Asian countries, spouses, parents, and children of the victim can all demand pain and suffering damages. Despite the prevalence of this type of damages, and the oft‐enormous amount of compensation, there has been no large‐scale empirical study on how judges achieve the difficult task of assessing pain and suffering damages. Using a unique data set containing hundreds of car accident cases rendered by the court of first instance in Taiwan, with single‐equation and structural‐equation models, we find the plaintiffs' ad damnum has a statistically significant influence on the court‐adjudicated pain and suffering damages. That could be evidence for the anchoring effect. Nevertheless, courts are very sensitive to the possibility of pushing defendants into financial hardship. When defendants' out‐of‐pocket payments of pecuniary damages, divided by defendants' income, are positive, this amount has a negative effect on the amount of pain and suffering damages, whereas when they are negative (this could happen because the amount of compulsory insurance payment had to be deducted), the amount in absolute value has a positive effect. Not all next‐of‐kin received the same amount. Spouses of the victim received more than other next‐of‐kin, and adult children received the least among eligible relatives. Parents, however, tended to be awarded a high amount of pain and suffering damages when they were the only familial group suing the defendant.

Suggested Citation

  • Yun‐chien Chang & Theodore Eisenberg & Han‐Wei Ho & Martin T. Wells, 2015. "Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: An Empirical Study," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 128-160, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:12:y:2015:i:1:p:128-160
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12067
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12067?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eisenberg, Theodore & Huang, Kuo-Chang, 2012. "The effect of rules shifting supreme court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary—An empirical lesson from Taiwan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 3-18.
    2. Jeffrey J. Rachlinski & Chris Guthrie & Andrew J. Wistrich, 2007. "Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(1), pages 167-186, March.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Schkade, David & Sunstein, Cass R, 1998. "Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 49-86, April.
    4. Valerie P. Hans & Valerie F. Reyna, 2011. "To Dollars from Sense: Qualitative to Quantitative Translation in Jury Damage Awards," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 120-147, December.
    5. Magdalena Flatscher‐Thöni & Andrea M. Leiter & Hannes Winner, 2013. "Pricing Damages for Pain and Suffering in Court: The Impact of the Valuation Method," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 104-119, March.
    6. Tom Baker, "undated". "Blood Money, New Money, and the Moral Economy of Tort Law in Action," University of Connecticut School of Law Working Papers uconn_ucwps-1005, University of Connecticut School of Law.
    7. Viscusi, W. Kip, 1988. "Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 203-220, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chang, Yun-chien & Chen, Kong-Pin & Liao, Jen-Che & Lin, Chang-Ching, 2023. "Ask more, awarded more: Evidence from Taiwan’s courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sofia Amaral-Garcia, 2015. "Non-economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1506, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Ronen Avraham, 2007. "An Empirical Study of the Impact of Tort Reforms on Medical Malpractice Settlement Payments," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(S2), pages 183-229, June.
    3. David A. Hyman & Bernard Black & Kathryn Zeiler & Charles Silver & William M. Sage, 2007. "Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award? Post‐Verdict Haircuts in Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988–2003," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 3-68, March.
    4. Cass R. Sunstein, 2008. "Illusory Losses," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 157-194, June.
    5. Chang, Yun-chien & Chen, Kong-Pin & Liao, Jen-Che & Lin, Chang-Ching, 2023. "Ask more, awarded more: Evidence from Taiwan’s courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Jessica Bregant & Alex Shaw & Katherine D. Kinzler, 2016. "Intuitive Jurisprudence: Early Reasoning About the Functions of Punishment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 693-717, December.
    7. Eliaz, Kfir & Ray, Debraj & Razin, Ronny, 2007. "Group decision-making in the shadow of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 236-273, January.
    8. Benjamin J. McMichael & W. Kip Viscusi, 2017. "The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 82-97, July.
    9. Régis Blazy & Bertrand Chopard & Eric Langlais & Ydriss Ziane, 2013. "Personal Bankruptcy Law, Fresh Starts, and Judicial Practice," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 169(4), pages 680-702, December.
    10. Eric Langlais, 2008. "Le "risque judiciaire" et les licenciements en France : le point de vue de l’économie du risque," Cahiers du CEREFIGE 0807, CEREFIGE (Centre Europeen de Recherche en Economie Financiere et Gestion des Entreprises), Universite de Lorraine, revised 2008.
    11. Alberto Cassone & Giovanni Ramello, 2011. "The simple economics of class action: private provision of club and public goods," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 205-224, October.
    12. Aimone, Jason A. & Hudja, Stanton & Law, Wilson & North, Charles M. & Ralston, Jason & Rentschler, Lucas, 2023. "An experimental exploration of reasonable doubt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 873-886.
    13. Ganga Shreedhar & Susana Mourato, 2020. "Linking Human Destruction of Nature to COVID-19 Increases Support for Wildlife Conservation Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 963-999, August.
    14. Koehler, Jonathan J. & Gershoff, Andrew D., 2003. "Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 244-261, March.
    15. Alessandro Melcarne, 2017. "Careerism and judicial behavior," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 241-264, October.
    16. Régis Blazy & Bertrand Chopard & Agnès Fimayer & Jean-Daniel Guigou, 2007. "Financial versus Social Efficiency of Corporate Bankruptcy Law: the French Dilemma?," LSF Research Working Paper Series 07-02, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    17. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    18. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2008. "Judicial Fact Discretion," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-35, January.
    19. Przemyslaw Banasik & Monika Odlanicka-Poczobutt & Maciej Wolny & Sylwia Morawska, 2020. "Preliminary Identification of Quantitative Factors Determining the Duration of Court Proceedings in Commercial Cases," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 279-293.
    20. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2010. "Testing Kahneman's Attitudinal WTP Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 22468, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:12:y:2015:i:1:p:128-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.