Abstract:Many jurisdictions award pain and suffering damages, yet it is difficult for judges or juries to quantify pain. Several jurisdictions, such as California, cap pain and suffering damages or other noneconomic damages, and legal scholars have proposed ways to control such damages. Reforms and proposals, however, have been based on limited empirical evidence. It remains an open question whether components of economic damages explain pain and suffering damages. This study employs a unique data set of Taiwan distric… Show more
“…In Chang et al. (), we found evidence for such an anchoring effect. In this study, we again find that the plaintiff's request, holding constant other variables, has a statistically significant effect on the pain and suffering awards.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…The research period was chosen to be consistent with another pain and suffering article that some of us collaborated on (Chang et al. ). We decided to focus on decisions by the court of first instance.…”
Section: Hypothesis and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chang et al. (), using another unique data set from Taiwan regarding the pain and suffering compensation in personal injury cases, find that career judges in Taiwan reasonably base many of their difficult decisions on objective criteria, most notably the amount of medical costs and the level of injury. Compared to awarding pain and suffering compensation in wrongful death cases, ascertaining the amount for personal injury seems easy.…”
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 structuralequation 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.
“…In Chang et al. (), we found evidence for such an anchoring effect. In this study, we again find that the plaintiff's request, holding constant other variables, has a statistically significant effect on the pain and suffering awards.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…The research period was chosen to be consistent with another pain and suffering article that some of us collaborated on (Chang et al. ). We decided to focus on decisions by the court of first instance.…”
Section: Hypothesis and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chang et al. (), using another unique data set from Taiwan regarding the pain and suffering compensation in personal injury cases, find that career judges in Taiwan reasonably base many of their difficult decisions on objective criteria, most notably the amount of medical costs and the level of injury. Compared to awarding pain and suffering compensation in wrongful death cases, ascertaining the amount for personal injury seems easy.…”
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 structuralequation 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.
“…11 Medical malpractice cases can be easily compared even if they have been decided in different jurisdictions. In practice, they follow the same rules concerning liability, causation, 7 I am aware of an article by Chang et al (2013) that assesses pain and suffering damages for personal injury cases (medical malpractice and car accidents) in Taiwan. Flatscher-Thöni et al (2013) assess compensation for pain-andsuffering in Austrian courts and differences in the valuation method (per-diem or lump-sum scheme).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the US, see Bovbjerg et al (1989). For Taiwan, see Chang et al (2013). 24 See Arroyo and Yágüez (2013 fore, one might worry that awards may vary unpredictably.…”
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Court are not more likely to receive damages than cases decided by the Civil Section. The probability of receiving compensation is significantly higher among cases involving permanent major/grave injuries.
Terms of use:
Documents inWith respect to non-economic compensation amounts, there are no significant differences between Administrative and Civil cases. This result is confirmed by matching estimation and simulation exercises. There is evidence of vertical inequality according to the level of harm: cases involving permanent grave injuries are those receiving the highest non-economic damages, followed by permanent major, death, permanent minor and temporary/emotional cases. Differences in compensation awards between Administrative and Civil courts has been one argument widely used against the current separation of jurisdictions in many civil law tradition countries. The results found in this paper do not support this claim.
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.