Jury awards are rarely out of line with judges' decisions

August 15, 2001

ITHACA, N.Y. -- A jury, persuaded by emotional testimony, awards a woman an unprecedented sum for scalding herself on hot coffee in a fast-food restaurant. Are outsized awards by untrained juries typical of what ails our judicial system? Not really, say two Cornell University professors, whose new study suggests that juries are far more rational and fair than critics believe them to be.

The Cornell study shows that jury awards for punitive damages are no larger in relation to compensatory awards and no more frequent than judges' awards. The finding contradicts popular opinion and a previous, less comprehensive study by other researchers.

The new study, which looks at close to 9,000 actual trials across the United States, is believed to be one of the largest of its kind. It was conducted by Theodore Eisenberg , the Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Martin Wells, professor of social statistics in Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relation and chair of the Department of Biometry, and three analysts from the National Center for State Courts, an independent research group.

Punitive compensation -- which, in civil suits, is occasionally granted in addition to compensatory damages for monetary loss -- is understood to be a kind of punishment of the offender. But while enormous punitive awards are not the norm, they do grab headlines when they are handed down, motivating Congress and the Supreme Court to attempt to restrict the power of juries in civil cases.

Critics have guessed that punitive damage awards would be much less arbitrary and more fair if more judges, and fewer juries, determined their size.

But the Cornell study showed that when the additional punitive damages were granted -- as in about 4 percent of the successful suits studied -- juries and judges usually granted awards with about the same proportion of punitive to compensatory damages. "People's knowledge about the mass of awards is misleading," said Eisenberg. "Policy is being determined on the notion that there are these crazy jurors out there that need to be reined in by legislatures and courts. The evidence is that juries are not out of control."

He commented that in the case of the scalding coffee suit, some facts got lost in the media shuffle, for example, that the fast-food chain had received many complaints of burns from its coffee before the suit and had failed to make changes.

However, Eisenberg noted that in a small group of verdicts -- seven out of the 121 punitive-damage awards by juries and 55 by judges studied -- a jury or a judge made a punitive award that was high in relation to other awards (that, in fact, was what happened in the case of the scalding coffee suit, with the trial judge substantially reducing the award in the end).

But the Cornell study showed that disparities were far fewer than critics have suggested, Eisenberg said, and rulings in such cases were often overturned on appeal. In those few, rare instances when they were not overturned, he asserts they were justified, as in a case "where a sports coach sexually abused a young athlete."

Eisenberg , Wells and their colleagues looked at 8,724 trials from large trial courts in 45 counties across the United States. The trials they studied were conducted in 1996 in Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City and elsewhere. Juries decided 6,429 of the cases and judges decided 2,295. An earlier study by academic researchers looked only at hypothetical cases presented to a much smaller sample that included judges and people eligible for juries, but not actual jurors.

A final version of the study will be published in the Cornell Law Review in March 2002.
-end-


Cornell University

Related Coffee Articles from Brightsurf:

Drink coffee after breakfast, not before, for better metabolic control
The new study looked at the combined effects of disrupted sleep and caffeine on our metabolism - with surprising results.

Even in people with Parkinson's gene, coffee may be protective
Even for people with a gene mutation tied to Parkinson's disease, coffee consumption may be associated with a lower risk of actually developing the disease, according to a new study published in the September 30, 2020, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

A coffee and catnap keep you sharp on the nightshift
A simple coffee and a quick catnap could be the cure for staying alert on the nightshift as new research from the University of South Australia shows that this unlikely combination can improve attention and reduce sleep inertia.

Latest findings on bitter substances in coffee
Coffee is very popular around the world despite or perhaps because of its bitter taste.

Coffee linked to lower body fat in women
Women who drink two or three cups of coffee a day have been found to have lower total body and abdominal fat than those who drink less, according to a new study published in The Journal of Nutrition.

How to make the healthiest coffee during COVID-19 lockdown
We may all be drinking more coffee to help us survive the COVID-19 lockdown.

Coffee changes our sense of taste
Sweet food is even sweeter when you drink coffee. This is shown by the result of research from Aarhus University.

'Whiskey webs' are the new 'coffee ring effect'
Spilled coffee forms a ring as the liquid evaporates, depositing solids along the edge of the puddle.

Is your coffee contributing to malaria risk?
Researchers at the University of Sydney and University of São Paulo, Brazil, estimate 20% of the malaria risk in deforestation hot spots is driven by the international trade of exports including: coffee, timber, soybean, cocoa, wood products, palm oil, tobacco, beef and cotton.

The complex biology behind your love (or hatred) of coffee
Why do some people feel like they need three cups of coffee just to get through the day when others are happy with only one?

Read More: Coffee News and Coffee Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.