In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of their Experiences in the Civil Justice System

Abstract

Little is known about the reactions of tort litigants to traditional and alternative litigation procedures. To explore this issue, we interviewed litigants in personal injury cases in three state courts whose cases had been resolved by trial, court-annexed arbitration, judicial settlement conferences, or bilateral settlement. The litigants viewed the trial and arbitration procedures as fairer than bilateral settlement, apparently because they believed that trials and arbitration hearings gave their case more respectful treatment. They were less satisfied with the outcome of judicial settlement conferences than with the outcome of bilateral settlements, because judicial settlement conference outcomes were more likely to fall below their expectations. In general, procedural justice judgments and outcome satisfaction were little related to objective outcome, cost, or delay; instead the evaluations appeared to be determined largely by perceptions of whether the procedure met litigants' criteria for procedural fairness and expectations on outcomes and costs. Gender, income, and race did not have much effect on evaluations.

VOICE, CONTROL, AND BELONGING: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness

“…For example, Lind, Huo, and Tyler (1994) found a remarkably similar pattern of procedural rankings for European, Hispanic, and African American students in a study of different ways of resolving conflicts. Lind, MacCoun et al (1990) found that procedural fairness had similar effects on litigation ratings effects for white vs. non-white, male vs. female, and high vs. low income litigants. Kulik, Lind, Ambrose, and MacCoun (1996; also see Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997) found that no significant differences in the way male and female tort litigants weighted various criteria in procedural justice ratings.…”

“…Surveys showed that arbitration provided litigants with the same desirable procedural dimensions they wanted from trials: the opportunity to present their case, receive a dignified and respectful hearing, and get a verdict on the merits Lind, MacCoun, et al, 1990). But of course arbitration provides those procedural features more quickly and cheaply than trial.…”

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

“…For example, a significant study in the relative deprivation literature (see Crosby (1976) for an overview) is that of deCarufel and Schopler (1979), who reasoned -among other things -that outcome improvement may be a source of rising expectations, and when these rising expectations are violated by improvements that fail to rise at the same rate, people may be dissatisfied with their improved outcomes (see also Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star & Williams, 1949). Furthermore, the findings of a study conducted by Lind, Maccoun, Ebener, Felstiner, Hensler, Resnik and Tyler (1990) also emphasize the importance of expectations in the development of fairness judgements. After reviewing these and other studies, Furby (1986) concluded that 'the notion that meeting expectations is central in the definition of justice' (p. 183).…”

Self-esteem and outcome fairness: Differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

“…The importance of relational concerns is underscored by studies showing that the relationalinteractional component of procedures is especially important in determining people's responses to the way they are treated (Koper, van Knippenberg, Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993;Tyler, 1994;Tyler & Bies, 1990;cf. interactional justice;Bies & Moag, 1986;dignitary concerns;Lind et al, 1990) and that the perceived fairness of procedures may affect people's self-evaluations (Koper et al, 1993;Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998;Tyler et al, 1996).' Whereas procedural considerations have a strong link with relational concerns, outcome considerations, in contrast, relate more to resource-based, or instrumental, concerns (Tyler, 1994(Tyler, , 1997(Tyler, , 1999.…”