IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmn/journl/y2019i3p199-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Pain and Suffering Awards (Un-)Predictable? Evidence from Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Flatscher-Thöni

    (UMIT – Private University for Health Sciences)

  • Andrea M. Leiter

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Hannes Winner

    (University of Salzburg and Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO))

Abstract

This paper assesses the widely held belief that damages for pain and suffering are random or arbitrary. In detail, we investigate whether damages for pain and suffering are systematically affected by individual-, injury- and procedural-specific characteristics and how important these factors are relative to each other. To uncover the predictability of these awards, we rely on a sample of German damages for pain and suffering awards including 2.244 verdicts. By estimating a standard regression model we observe that final awards are systematically influenced by the injury's conditions, by the court level the case is brought in and by the engagement of a lawyer. Our findings let us conclude that damages for pain and suffering and the respective assessment process within the German judicial system are largely reasonable and transparent rather than random.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Flatscher-Thöni & Andrea M. Leiter & Hannes Winner, 2019. "Are Pain and Suffering Awards (Un-)Predictable? Evidence from Germany," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 3, pages 199-219, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cmn:journl:y:2019:i:3:p:199-219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaco.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/flatscher-thoni-leiter-winner.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Halla, Martin, 2007. "Divorce and the Excess Burden of Lawyers," IZA Discussion Papers 2962, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Anderson, James M & Kling, Jeffrey R & Stith, Kate, 1999. "Measuring Interjedge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 271-307, April.
    3. Zhou, Jun, 2010. "Determinants of Noneconomic Damages in Medical Malpractice Settlements and Litigations: Evidence from Texas since 1988," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 348, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    4. Grembi, Veronica & Garoupa, Nuno, 2013. "Delays in medical malpractice litigation in civil law jurisdictions: some evidence from the Italian Court of Cassation," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 423-452, October.
    5. Viscusi, W. Kip, 1988. "Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 203-220, December.
    6. Lott, John R, Jr & Manning, Richard L, 2000. "Have Changing Liability Rules Compensated Workers Twice for Occupational Hazards? Earnings Premiums and Cancer Risks," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 99-130, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sofia Amaral-Garcia, 2019. "Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Non-Economic Damages Differently?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/301273, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sofia Amaral-Garcia, 2015. "Non-economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1506, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Leiter, Andrea & Thöni, Magdalena & Winner, Hannes, 2012. "Evaluating human life using court decisions on damages for pain and suffering," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 119-128.
    3. Yun‐chien Chang & Theodore Eisenberg & Han‐Wei Ho & Martin T. Wells, 2015. "Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: An Empirical Study," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 128-160, March.
    4. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Richard T. Boylan, 2012. "The Effect of Punishment Severity on Plea Bargaining," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(3), pages 565-591.
    6. Martin Halla & Johann Scharler, 2012. "Marriage, Divorce, and Interstate Risk Sharing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(1), pages 55-78, March.
    7. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Pain and Suffering Awards: They Shouldn't Be (Just) about Pain and Suffering," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 195-216, June.
    8. Max M. Schanzenbach, 2015. "Racial Disparities, Judge Characteristics, and Standards of Review in Sentencing," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(1), pages 27-47, March.
    9. Matthew Cole & Robert Elliott & Joanne Lindley, 2009. "Dirty money: Is there a wage premium for working in a pollution intensive industry?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 161-180, October.
    10. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.
    11. repec:esx:essedp:737 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Thomas DeLeire & Shakeeb Khan & Christopher Timmins, 2013. "Roy Model Sorting And Nonrandom Selection In The Valuation Of A Statistical Life," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 279-306, February.
    13. Freeborn, Beth & Hartmann, Monica, 2009. "Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior," MPRA Paper 13880, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Grembi, Veronica, 2014. "Curb your premium: The impact of monitoring malpractice claims," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 139-146.
    15. Bo Cowgill, 2019. "Bias and Productivity in Humans and Machines," Upjohn Working Papers 19-309, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    16. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2008. "Judicial Fact Discretion," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-35, January.
    17. Thomas J. Miceli, 2008. "Criminal Sentencing Guidelines And Judicial Discretion," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 207-215, April.
    18. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    19. Bellavance, Franois & Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2009. "The value of a statistical life: A meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 444-464, March.
    20. Rafael Di Tella & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2013. "Criminal Recidivism after Prison and Electronic Monitoring," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 28-73.
    21. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2006. "Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 863-876, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tort Law; Damages for Pain and Suffering; Civil Procedure; Predictability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cmn:journl:y:2019:i:3:p:199-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Helena Campbelle (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.eaco.eu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.