IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/sbgwpe/2011_002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Duo Cum Faciunt Idem, Non Est Idem. Evidence from Austrian Pain and Suffering Verdicts

Author

Listed:
  • Leiter, Andrea M.

    () (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck)

  • Thöni, Magdalena

    () (Department for Human and Economic Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT))

  • Winner, Hannes

    () (University of Salzburg)

Abstract

We analyze the pricing of pain and suffering and, in particular, whether the corresponding compensations are affected by a court’s approach to value 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 payments on damages for pain and suffering. We find significant higher payments under the lump sum regime, which are not vanishing even after controlling for individual- and injury-specific characteristics. Our evidence suggests that the observed difference between lump sum and per diem schemes mainly appears if the victims are female and exposed to multiple injuries and, to a lesser extent, to intensive past pain days.

Suggested Citation

  • Leiter, Andrea M. & Thöni, Magdalena & Winner, Hannes, 2011. "Duo Cum Faciunt Idem, Non Est Idem. Evidence from Austrian Pain and Suffering Verdicts," Working Papers in Economics 2011-2, University of Salzburg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:sbgwpe:2011_002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uni-salzburg.at/fileadmin/oracle_file_imports/1421203.PDF
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tort Law; Per Diem Pain and Suffering Damages; Lump Sum Pain and Suffering Damages;

    JEL classification:

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ris:sbgwpe:2011_002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jörg Paetzold). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iwsbgat.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.