Personal Injury Lawsuits Research Articles

WEIGHING TOXIC TORTS

INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS who claim harm from a pharmaceutical or chemical may sue the manufacturer or other responsible party in court in what is known as a toxic tort—or personal injury—lawsuit. In t...

Tobacco manufacturers’ defence against plaintiffs’ claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick

Background: In the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, the major US cigarette manufacturers admitted, to varying degrees, that smoking causes cancer and other diseases. Objective: To...

Beverage Alcohol Sales to Minors

The purpose of the study was to assess the risk environment for operators who sell beverage alcohol and the use of false identification by minors. A series of personal injury lawsuits filed between 1987 and 2002, and data from a four-semester survey of 379 students were analyzed to provide an investigative summary for a particular period of time. Descriptive statistics identified the most frequent causes of personal injury, the types of injuries sustained, the outcome and average dollar amount awarded, the gender of the injured parties, the states where lawsuits were filed, and the attempts by those who are underage to purchase beverage alcohol using false identification. Operational methods to reduce the risk environment are presented.

Diagnósticos histopatológicos das pneumoconioses

Asbestos-related diseases constitute a major health problem due to the great number of workers exposed to asbestos over the past 50 years. Personal injury lawsuits against industries that deal with asbestos number in the hundreds, and new cases continue to be filed. The scientific issues related to asbestos are complex, and, although the broad outlines of asbestos-related diseases have been well-established, many significant aspects (such as the pathology involved) are poorly understood. In Brazil, asbestos has been mined commercially since 1940, with production levels recently approaching 200,000 tons/year, resulting in the asbestos exposure of approximately 10,000 workers in the mining activity, and an unknown number of workers in asbestos-cement industry, primarily roofers and concrete rooftop water tank installers. One study, using appropriate methods of scientific investigation to evaluate the effects of such exposure on the health of asbestos mine workers in Brazil was conducted as part of a multicenter study and entitled "Morbidity and Mortality Among Workers Exposed to Asbestos in Mining Activities, 1940-1996". Drawing upon the experience acquired during the course of that study, the objective of the current report was to give an overview of asbestos-related diseases, with a special focus on the difficulties involved in establishing the histopathological diagnosis.

The Role of Litigation in Human Research Accountability

This essay examines and analyzes the recent and dramatic series of personal injury lawsuits instituted against those individuals and institutions that conduct and monitor human research. It discusses the social engineering functions of tort litigation, outlines the legal elements and viability of lawsuits against those who conduct and monitor human research, and evaluates and predicts what role tort litigation will play in fulfilling the goals of accountability in the context of human research and human research regulation. In general, tort law engenders two forms of accountability: retrospective and prospective. Retrospective accountability is backward looking, focusing on harms that have already occurred, their culprits, and the reimbursement of individuals for their injuries. Prospective accountability is forward looking in that it encourages actors and institutions to fulfill responsibilities toward individuals in order that harm does not occur, or at least that the risk of harm is decreased. This article argues that research litigation is not, and will probably never become, an effective means of ensuring retrospective accountability in regard to research injuries and ethical violations. Paradoxically though, the current wave of research litigation may serve an important and even key role in encouraging and ensuring prospective accountability.

Damage Caps, Motivated Anchoring, and Bargaining Impasse

This paper reports results from a bargaining experiment testing the effect on settlement rates of a damage cap set much higher than the value of the underlying claim. We presented 462 student subjects with materials outlining a personal injury lawsuit and permitted randomly assigned subject pairs to negotiate a pretrial settlement. We find that imposition of a $1 million cap reduced the settlement rate through a process termed “motivated anchoring,” in which a relatively high damage cap disproportionately anchors the plaintiff's estimate of the likely damage award. The result is a widened disparity in opposing litigants' judgments and less settlement. These results contrast with findings from previous experiments where a relatively low cap constrains the parties' judgments and produces more settlement. This pair of results suggests the effect of a cap will depend on its size relative to the stakes of the case.

Damage Caps, Motivated Anchoring, and Bargaining Impasse

This paper reports results from a bargaining experiment testing the effect on settlement rates of a damage cap set much higher than the value of the underlying claim. We furnished 462 student subjects with materials outlining a personal injury lawsuit in which the only unresolved claim was the amount of damages the plaintiff should receive for physical pain and suffering and mental anguish. Subjects were assigned the role of either plaintiff or defendant and paired randomly with an adversary. For half the pairs, damages were capped at $1 million, while for the rest damages were uncapped. Whereas in a prior experiment, a $250,000 cap increased the settlement rate, the instant $1 million cap reduced the settlement rate. We find evidence in the current study for a process termed motivated anchoring, in which a relatively high damage cap disproportionately anchors the plaintiff's estimate of the likely damage award. The result is a widened disparity in opposing litigants' judgments, and less settlement.

Can Aggression in Dogs Be Elicited Through the Use of Electronic Pet Containment Systems?

Five cases are described that involve severe attacks on humans by dogs who were being trained or maintained on an electronic pet containment system. The system is designed to boundary train a dog through the use of electric shock in an escape-avoidance conditioning paradigm. Data were collected from legal documents filed in personal injury lawsuits. Analysis of the findings show that all dogs lacked a marked history of aggressive responding, all were adult males, and most were reproductively intact. All attacks happened near the boundary of the property. In every case, the system was operational at the time of attack. Moreover, in most cases, the dog received shock. Findings lend themselves to possible interpretation in terms of unconditioned aggression as a result of a dog having received electronic shock and avoidance-motivated aggression mediated through fear reduction toward human stimuli.

STRUGGLING WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Merrell Dow had been fighting personal injury lawsuits over its antinausea medicine Bendectin for years, and had won many cases. But despite scientific evidence showing the drug could not cause the effects attributed to it, the number of lawsuits snowballed. In 1993, one case eventually got to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical firm. The real impact of that decision, however, is that the court laid out specific guidelines for determining what scientific evidence is admissible in court. The decision in that case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. , made judges the gatekeepers for the admissibility of evidence. It made clear that, for scientific evidence at least, judges must determine at the beginning of the trial that experts should be presenting evidence that is characterized by several factors, including peer review, testing, standards, and general scientific acceptance. Just a year ago, the Supreme Court followed up on Daubert in the case ...

Life care planning and earnings capacity analysis for brain injured clients involved in personal injury litigation utilizing the RAPEL method

Clients who have experienced a brain injury often are damaged by a third party who is perceived responsible for the consequences of their actions. In the United States, a common method of seeking financial compensation for the injury is to file a personal injury law suit. This article will outline the RAPEL method for identifying instrumental details for settling the personal injury claim or educating a jury if a trial is necessary. Topics include identification of future medical care and related needs as well as assessing the effects of the injury on the ability to work.

Utilization of the Life Care Plan in personal injury litigation: case evaluation and funding design in the catastrophic needs case

Information necessary to evaluate, properly design and adequately fund for the care of catastrophic needs in a personal injury lawsuit is available in life care plans and wage loss analyses. This article critiques the extent to which current methodology underutilizes the data which may lead to inaccurate assumptions, poorly designed structured settlements and potentially hazardous decisions in providing for the damaged plaintiff. It is hoped that a discussion among the disciplines can lead to a clearer understanding of the processes, encourage more comprehensive analyses and planning and promote the best use of settlement or verdict funds in critical care cases.

Kentucky grants operating permit to Ashland Inc.

The state of Kentucky last month granted a long-awaited permit to Ashland Petroleum Co., a division of Ashland Inc., to operate its huge refinery and petrochemical operation in Catlettsburg. The refinery, located on the Big Sandy River where Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia converge, had been operating- with state exemptions-under an outdated state air quality permit issued in 1972. Gaining the permit on June 22 was for Ashland the culmination of a complex negotiation process with the state. Negotiations had been complicated by hundreds of personal injury lawsuits totaling, by some accounts, as much as $3 billion that had been filed against the company during the past decade. These suits, except for a still-lingering handful of appeals and one new case, have been settled or dismissed. The end to virtually all litigation, says Kentucky Air Quality Division Director John E. Hornback, helped hasten the issuance of the permit. The delays in Ashland's permit stemmed from ...

The Lost Pleasure Of Life Scale: A Reply To Caragonne

Abstract No abstract available.

Are Attorneys Paid What They're worth? Contingent Fees and the Settlement Process

Previous articleNext article No AccessAre Attorneys Paid What They're worth? Contingent Fees and the Settlement ProcessTerry ThomasonTerry Thomason Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Legal Studies Volume 20, Number 1Jan., 1991 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/467885 Views: 7Total views on this site Citations: 25Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1991 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Myriam Doriat-Duban, Yannick Gabuthy, Eve-Angéline Lambert Actions en justice et rémunération des avocats : une revue de la littérature, Revue économique Vol. 71, no.33 (Jun 2020): 557–590.https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.713.0557Yun-chien Chang, Su-hao Tu Two-way selection between flat-fee attorneys and litigants: theoretical and empirical analyses, European Journal of Law and Economics 49, no.11 (Sep 2017): 131–164.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-017-9566-3Yun-chien Chang, Su_hao Tu Two-Way Selection between Flat-Fee Attorneys and Litigants: Theoretical and Empirical Analyses, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2916219Florian Baumann, Tim Friehe Contingent Fees with Legal Discovery, American Law and Economics Review 18, no.11 (Oct 2015): 155–175.https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahv020Eyal Zamir, Barak Medina, Uzi Segal Who Benefits from the Uniformity of Contingent Fee Rates?, Review of Law & Economics 9, no.33 (Jan 2014).https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2013-0009Robert D. Emerson, R. Edward Minchin, Stephen Gruneberg Workers’ Compensation in Construction: Workers’ Benefits under Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 5, no.33 (Aug 2013): 113–121.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000116Eyal Zamir, Barak Medina, Uzi Segal The Puzzling Uniformity of Lawyers’ Contingent Fee Rates: An Assortative Matching Solution, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1986491Eyal Zamir and Ilana Ritov Revisiting the Debate over Attorneys’ Contingent Fees: A Behavioral Analysis Zamir/Ritov, The Journal of Legal Studies 39, no.11 (Jul 2015): 245–288.https://doi.org/10.1086/605510Harold Tan Minimising medical litigation: a review of key tort and legal reforms, International Journal of Law in Context 5, no.22 (Jul 2009): 179–233.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552309990061Richard Lewis Moorhead 'Improving Access to Justice' Contingency Fees: A Study of Their Operation in the United States, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2008).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1302843Richard Lewis Moorhead, Rebecca Cumming Damage-Based Contingency Fees in Employment Cases: A Survey of Practitioners, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2008).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1306308N. Garoupa, F. Gomez-Pomar Cashing by the Hour: Why Large Law Firms Prefer Hourly Fees over Contingent Fees, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 24, no.22 (Nov 2007): 458–475.https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewm063Alberto Casagrande, Marco Spallone Investigating the determinants of pretrial settlement rates: contingent versus non-contingent lawyers’ fees, European Journal of Law and Economics 24, no.11 (Aug 2007): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-007-9018-6Kathryn E. Spier Chapter 4 Litigation, (Jan 2007): 259–342.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0730(07)01004-3Kong-Pin Chen, Jue-Shyan Wang Fee-Shifting Rules in Litigation with Contingency Fees, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2005).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.798044A. Mitchell Mitchell Polinsky, Daniel L. Rubinfeld Aligning the Interests of Lawyers and Clients, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2003).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.281628A. Mitchell Mitchell Polinsky, Daniel L. Rubinfeld A Note on Settlements under the Contingent Fee Method of Compensating Lawyers, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2003).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.286055Nuno M. Garoupa, Fernando Gomez-Pomar Cashing by the Hour: Why Large Law Firms Prefer Hourly Fees Over Contingent Fees, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2003).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.394305Masamitsu ONISHI, Toshihiko OMOTO, Kiyoshi KOBAYASHI DISPUTE MECHANISMS IN INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 2002, no.714714 (Sep 2002): 191–204.https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.2002.714_191A.Mitchell Polinsky, Daniel L. Rubinfeld A note on settlements under the contingent fee method of compensating lawyers, International Review of Law and Economics 22, no.22 (Aug 2002): 217–225.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(02)00088-1Douglas Hyatt, Boris Kralj The Impact of Representation and other Factors on the Outcomes of Employee-Initiated Workers' Compensation Appeals, ILR Review 53, no.44 (Jul 2000): 665–683.https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390005300406Jerry Van Hoy Markets and contingency: How client markets influence the work of plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers, International Journal of the Legal Profession 6, no.33 (Nov 1999): 345–366.https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.1999.9960470Richard Moorhead, Avrom Sherr, Alan Paterson Judging on results? Outcome measures: Quality, strategy and the search for objectivity, International Journal of the Legal Profession 1, no.22 (Jan 1994): 191–210.https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.1994.9960375Theodore Eisenberg Negotiation, Lawyering, and Adjudication: Kritzer on Brokers and Deals, Law <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Social Inquiry 19, no.11 (Jan 1994): 275–299.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1994.tb00403.x Terry Thomason , and John F. Burton, Jr. Economic Effects of Workers' Compensation in the United States: Private Insurance and the Administration of Compensation Claims, Journal of Labor Economics 11, no.1, Part 21, Part 2 (Oct 2015): S1–S37.https://doi.org/10.1086/298327

Distortions and deceptions in self presentation: Effects of protracted litigation in personal injury cases

AbstractThe goal of diagnostic examinations in personal injury lawsuits is to ascertain genuineness and substantiality of claimed impairments so that ‘damages’ can be accurately defined. These examinations require consideration of the potential role of malingering and other deceptive response styles in determining the nature and extent of impairment. Involvement in litigation renders plaintiffs susceptible to stressors and to influences that may lead to increased impairment, biased reportage, and retarded recovery. Underlying personality patterns play a critical role in defining and shaping reactions to trauma, to the stress of litigation, and to treatment interventions. Protracted litigation creates conditions that promote mnemonic and attitudinal distortions, as well as conscious and unconscious motivations for secondary gain. The presence of non‐legally relevant factors provides the opportunity for proportionate attribution of causation. An assessment model is proposed for analyzing elements of causation.

A Comparison of Attorneys’ Reasons for Settlement in Personal Injury Lawsuits

This study was conducted to determine the reasons that influence the decision to settle a personal injury lawsuit rather than proceed to court for a trial. Additionally, this study compared plaintiff attorneys’ and insurance company attorneys’ reasons for settlement in personal injury lawsuits to determine whether there are significant differences between the two groups. Subjects, 28 plaintiff attorneys and 57 insurance company attorneys, rated the importance of or degree of agreement with 77 statements related to their decision to settle or to recommend settlement. T tests revealed significant differences between the two groups on 31 of the 77 items. Among all 85 attorneys, the top four reasons for settlement were (a) if the opposing attorney offers realistic settlement figures, a jury trial will offer more risk than advantage; (b) settlements are an attractive alternative to a trial partly because of the high costs of litigation; (c) in deciding whether to settle, attorneys attempt to determine the probable verdict in light of the evidence; and (d) attorneys attempt to determine the value of an immediate settlement compared to the uncertainty of a trial.

DTP Vaccine Litigation, 1988

Sir .—Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga, have maintained surveillance of personal injury lawsuits filed against three manufacturers of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis (DTP) vaccines. 1,2 Data for calendar year 1988 have now become available and show that the number of suits filed has continued to decrease from the peak of 255 suits in 1986 (Table 1). The 114 suits filed in 1988 represent a 55% decrease from 1986. While the total amount claimed in lawsuits specifying an amount was similar in 1987 and 1988, the average amount claimed per suit increased substantially to $19.75 million. However, this figure is considerably less than the peak of $46.54 million in 1984. The decrease in lawsuits has been associated with a stabilization in the prices for DTP vaccine (Table 2). In 1982, public sector providers paid approximately 15 cents per dose. These prices peaked at $9.63 per dose between

The Courts and the Market: An Economic Analysis of Contingent Fees in Class-Action Litigation

COMPENSATION for professional services is uniformly contingent on effective performance in the long run. Simply put, the market eventually rewards success and penalizes failure. And in some professions, payment is contingent on successful performance even at the level of the individual transaction; in contrast to the physician, who will be paid for his efforts even if the patient dies, the real estate broker receives no compensation at all unless the house is sold, and the executive recruiter is not paid unless the desired manager is hired. Compensation in the legal profession takes a number of forms, but payment for representing a tort plaintiff, for example in a personal injury lawsuit, appears to be almost always explicitly contingent upon success.' Typically, the plaintiff will hire a lawyer and agree upon a percentage of the final recovery that will serve as the lawyer's compensation. If the recovery is zero then so, too, is the lawyer's take. The contingent fee arrangement has been studied extensively, in part

Liability: perspectives and policy

The United States has recently witnessed an explosion of personal injury lawsuits involving medical malpractice, unsafe products, and widespread environmental hazards. Jury awards and out-of-court settlements have escalated in many cases to hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time, premiums for liability have skyrocketed. As a result, physicians have cut back services and some municipalities and businesses have been denied liability coverage altogether.Some experts claim that only fundamental of the nation's civil justice system will end this insurance crisis. But critics of such wholesale judicial contend that the industry has launced a reform campaign to cover its own past underwriting mistakes. Liability brings together economists and experts in liability law and the industry to assess the merits of the conflicting positions and to formulate sound public policy. Led by Robert Litan and Clifford Winston, the contributors describe the major changes that have contributed to the crunch and set forth a methodological framework for evaluating the debate over the current liability system.They conclude that increases in premiums and cutbacks in coverage have been real but selective; that the forces in the judicial system responsible for rising liability costs are not readily subject to change; and that we know too little about the cost and benefits of the current tort system to replace it with an alternative compensation program.

Roof Collapse, Magic Mart Store, Bolivar, Tennessee

This paper summarizes an investigation of the July 2, 1983, roof collapse of the Magic Mart store in Bolivar, Tennessee. The building was a onestory retail store of steel‐framed roof construction. The collapse occurred during a severe thunderstorm with intense rainfall. The investigation includes review of background information and eyewitness accounts of the collapse, review of design and construction documents, site investigation and sample collection, laboratory testing of samples of the collapse debris, and structural analyses. The initiating mode of failure was instability of one of the beam‐column connections of the roof framing, triggered by ponded roof water. The principal cause of the failure was inadequate buckling resistance of the unbraced and unstiffened beam‐column connections, due to major deviations in the construction from the design documents. Also contributing to the failure were ponding rain water caused by improper slope and drainage of the roof and the increased weight of roofing materials added during the 10‐year life of the building. The paper concludes with a summary of the results of a personal injury law suit resulting from the collapse, and with recommendations for improvement in design and construction practices based on the lessons learned from this failure.