Perceptions of civil justice: The litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors

Abstract

Public perceptions that the civil justice system is in crisis are apparently widespread, but little is known about the causes or correlates of such views. This article analyzes the litigation crisis attitudes of a sample of civil jurors. Like the public, jurors endorsed a number of statements suggesting that there is a litigation crisis. Factor analysis identified two independent components: general concern over excessive litigation, and criticism of the civil jury. Litigation crisis views were found in all demographic and attitudinal subgroups. However, attitudes about the civil justice system were related to the respondent's political efficacy, claims consciousness, belief in a just world, age, religion, and race.

After the Crash: Citizens' Perceptions of Connective-Tissue Injury Lawsuits

“…A variable entitled Political Efficacy was formed by combining responses to two items used in prior research on political efficacy, or the extent to which people think political change is possible through the efforts of its citizens (Acock & Clark, 1990;Campbell, Gurin & Miller, 1954;Hans & Lofquist, 1994) …”

“…In prior research (Hans & Lofquist, 1994) civil jurors who scored high in political efficacy were also more supportive of the civil litigation system. That relationship is replicated in this data set.…”

“…This could reflect the minor nature of the injuries, and that di minimus injuries are not categorized in some people's minds as valid injuries or grounds for a lawsuit (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). It could also reflect some innate skepticism about even minor claims brought in the civil justice system by plaintiffs saying they are injured (Hans & Lofquist, 1994;Hans & Vadino, 2000). The mock jury research finding that legally blameless plaintiffs are nevertheless accorded some degree of fault (Feigenson et al, 1997) Looking at the determinants of this key set of whiplash beliefs, both personal experience and other attitudes play a role.…”

Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths

“…This juror skepticism about personal injury claims extends beyond medical malpractice cases. Hans and Lofquist [14,15] conducted interviews with jurors in a large study of cases involving individuals with claims against businesses and health provider defendants. They found that jurors often penalized plaintiffs who did not meet high standards of credibility and behavior, including those who did not appear as injured as they claimed, those with preexisting medical conditions, and those who did not do enough to help themselves recover from their injuries.…”

Jurors' Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

“…The strongest relationship was with an attitude scale, the Litigation Crisis Scale, which measured the extent to which a juror believed that there was a litigation crisis and a substantial amount of frivolous litigation (see Hans 2000;Hans and Lofquist 1994). Jurors who showed the greatest suspicion of experts also tended to believe that there were many illegitimate lawsuits.…”