惩罚性赔偿演算:各州惩罚性赔偿改革的差异发生率

Benjamin J. McMichael, W. Viscusi
{"title":"惩罚性赔偿演算:各州惩罚性赔偿改革的差异发生率","authors":"Benjamin J. McMichael, W. Viscusi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2878056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. Using samples of trial court verdicts from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, we find that punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. Additionally, we find that maintaining lower evidentiary standards increases both the probability that punitive damages are awarded and the size of those awards.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin J. McMichael, W. Viscusi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2878056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. Using samples of trial court verdicts from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, we find that punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. Additionally, we find that maintaining lower evidentiary standards increases both the probability that punitive damages are awarded and the size of those awards.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2878056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2878056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

州惩罚性损害赔偿改革改变了法院裁决惩罚性损害赔偿的方式。我们将判决惩罚性损害赔偿的决定建模为一个两步过程,包括判决任何惩罚性损害赔偿的决定和判决金额的决定。使用来自州法院民事司法调查的初审法院判决样本,我们发现惩罚性损害赔偿上限减少了判给的损害赔偿金额,但并不影响是否最初判给。此外,我们发现维持较低的证据标准既增加了惩罚性损害赔偿的可能性,也增加了这些赔偿的规模。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms
State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. Using samples of trial court verdicts from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, we find that punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. Additionally, we find that maintaining lower evidentiary standards increases both the probability that punitive damages are awarded and the size of those awards.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic Discovery as Regulation Section 89 of the CPC: ADR and Business Disputes. Brief for Samuel L. Bray as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Merck & Co. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1