Tort damages

Visscher, Louis

doi:10.4337/9781848447301.00015

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…for medical malpractice cases: the compensatory goal of tort law requires that the injured patient be made "whole" and should also deter negligent medical care (Arlen 2000;Visscher 2009). The general rule is that patients should be fully compensated for the harm suffered, with courts tending to award economic and noneconomic damages.…”

Section: Previous Research and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Amaral-Garcia¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.

show abstract

Section: Previous Research and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Amaral-Garcia¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Geistfeld (), for instance, recommends asking the jury to assess how much a rational individual would have paid ex ante to eliminate the risk caused by a loss from pain and suffering (see also Calfee & Rubin ). Avraham () introduces a system of age‐adjusted multipliers assigned to the plaintiff's medical costs to calculate the pain and suffering component, and Visscher () proposes use values (quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs)) to calculate damages in tort cases with personal injuries (see also Karapanou & Visscher ). Parallel to these contributions is an eminent line of empirical research analyzing the determinants of damages for pain and suffering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pricing Damages for Pain and Suffering in Court: The Impact of the Valuation Method

Flatscher‐Thöni¹,

Leiter

Winner

2013

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze the pricing of pain and suffering and, in particular, whether the corresponding compensation for pain and suffering is affected by a court's approach to valuing such damages. For this purpose, we use data on pain and suffering verdicts in Austria, where courts are generally free to choose between a per‐diem and a lump‐sum scheme to assess damages for pain and suffering. The per‐diem approach was introduced in 1990 but was not adopted in all Austrian provincial courts. This enables us to estimate the causal impact of the change in calculation schemes. Applying a difference‐in‐difference framework to estimate this treatment effect, we observe that courts increased their compensation by about 38 percent to 59 percent after the implementation of the per‐diem scheme.

show abstract

“…The discrepancy between deterrence and corrective justice would be then limited to tertiary costs. For a definition of primary, secondary and tertiary costs Visscher (2009). Note 8.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle and Optimal Deterrence

Romano¹

2013

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central role of corrective justice in shaping private law has vigorously been challenged by the law and economics movement, and its concept of optimal deterrence. The fierce rivalry between the two competing theories seems to be at a dead end since scholars on each side appear to be deaf to the arguments raised by their counterparts. However, building on Kantian notion of conceptually sequenced ideas, it is suggested that the two theories are not only perfectly compatible, but also necessary complements of each other. Law needs justice, justice needs deterrence, and deterrence without justice is an empty and incoherent exercise.

show abstract

Tort damages

Cited by 11 publications

References 48 publications

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Pricing Damages for Pain and Suffering in Court: The Impact of the Valuation Method

Aristotle and Optimal Deterrence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About