This study explored how product users' risk taking characteristics and the presence or absence of a warning influenced allocation of responsibility for accidents during consumer product use. Sixty-three subjects were shown eight scenarios describing a product accident and injury. The scenarios described a litigation context that implicated the consumer as a high or low risk taker. Subjects allocated accident responsibility between the manufacturer, retailer, and consumer (user). Two variables were manipulated; descriptions of users' prior risk taking behaviors, and presence or absence of a warning. A warning effect was found; mean allocation to manufacturers was 20% and 60% with and without warnings, and 74% and 31% to consumers with and without warnings. High risk takers received more responsibility (85%) than low risk takers (65%) when warnings were present; however, in the no-warning condition the difference between allocations made to high and low risk takers was greatly reduced (28% and 35% respectively).
The influence of warning quality, container hazardousness, and severity of the potential injury on attention to and retention of warning information were examined. Warning quality and container hazardousness were manipulated as within subjects variables, severity of injury as a between subjects variable. Two levels of each variable were used, high and low. Participants viewed the 4 possible combinations of warning quality and container hazardousness and then responded to various questions concerning their perceptions and retention of warning information. The results demonstrated the importance of warning quality. Enhanced features such as pictorials, signal words, safety icons, and color increase warning salience and recollection of warning information. The results also indicate that the hazardousness of containers influences whether people read warning labels and subsequent reports of cautious intent. However, its influence is modified by both severity of injury and warning quality.
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 x 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.
A study was carried out to explore the effects of the level of economic damage awards on the amount of pain and suffering awards in a product liability litigation context. Two separate accident scenarios were presented to participants who were instructed to consider themselves in the role of jurors. One scenario involved a vehicle accident resulting in permanent quadriplegia and the other described a work place incident where an employee received chemical burns on 65% of his body. Two levels of economic damages were manipulated for each scenario as a between-participants variable. Following the presentation of each scenario, including the economic damages award, participants were asked to make a pain and suffering award. There were no constraints on the size of the awards. Results indicated significant differences in pain and suffering allocations for the two scenarios (means in dollars were: quad = 2.3 million, burn = 1.4 million). While mean pain and suffering awards were higher for the condition of higher economic damage awards (2.0 million) than for lower economic damage awards (1.5 million), the difference was not statistically significant. Substantial variance in the pain and suffering awards was also found, which poses interesting challenges to juries in reaching agreement on such awards.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.