2018•Unpublished venueRequires access

What's it Worth? Jury Damage Awards as Community Judgments

Valerie P. Hans

Open publisher page 26 citations

Abstract

55 William & Mary Law Review 935 (2014)In a recent article, The Political Puzzle of the Civil Jury, Jason Solomon questions whether the civil jury operates effectively as a political institution. Civil juries are said to perform multiple political functions. They inject community perspectives and values into legal decision making. They act as a check on government and corporate power. They legitimize the civil justice system. Finally, they promote greater civic engagement among jurors. Solomon concludes, however, that these claims about the civil jury's multiple political functions are overstated and understudied. He calls for more theoretical and empirical study of the civil jury's performance of its political functions.This Article offers a response to Solomon's piece, providing evidence about the political dimensions of jury damage award decision making. I argue that the damage award is a key part of the civil jury's political activity. Indeed, in my view, it is just as significant as the political nature of the civil jury's liability judgment, which up to now has been a more frequent topic of scholarly inquiry. This Article focuses on one of the dimensions Solomon identifies: the injection of community perspectives and values into legal decision making. I contend that damage awards and community values are deeply intertwined. The dollars that juries award, from the compensatory amounts they grant to auto accident victims to the punitive damages they deliver against large corporations, are very much products of community views and sentiments. In my view, damage awards constitute powerful political actions by the civil jury. Civil jury damage awards serve to check or endorse private power, whether it is power over one's own neighbors or over business corporations. To support my argument, I draw on theoretical accounts of jury decision making about damages, including the story model, insights from cultural cognition research, and a new gist model that cognitive psychologist Valerie Reyna and I have developed to explain the process of jury damage award decision making. Jurors' values constitute an important component of these and other models. I also describe the empirical research that documents and establishes the pervasive influence and content of community values in jury damage award judgments.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

55 William & Mary Law Review 935 (2014)In a recent article, The Political Puzzle of the Civil Jury, Jason Solomon questions whether the civil jury operates effectively as a political institution. Civil juries are said to perform multiple political functions. They inject community perspectives and values into legal decision making. They act as a check on government and corporate power. They legitimize the civil justice system. Finally, they promote greater civic engagement among jurors. Solomon concludes, however, that these claims about the civil jury's multiple political functions are overstated and understudied. He calls for more theoretical and empirical study of the civil jury's performance of its political functions.This Article offers a response to Solomon's piece, providing evidence about the political dimensions of jury damage award decision making. I argue that the damage award is a key part of the civil jury's political activity. Indeed, in my view, it is just as significant as the political nature of the civil jury's liability judgment, which up to now has been a more frequent topic of scholarly inquiry. This Article focuses on one of the dimensions Solomon identifies: the injection of community perspectives and values into legal decision making. I contend that damage awards and community values are deeply intertwined. The dollars that juries award, from the compensatory amounts they grant to auto accident victims to the punitive damages they deliver against large corporations, are very much products of community views and sentiments. In my view, damage awards constitute powerful political actions by the civil jury. Civil jury damage awards serve to check or endorse private power, whether it is power over one's own neighbors or over business corporations. To support my argument, I draw on theoretical accounts of jury decision making about damages, including the story model, insights from cultural cognition research, and a new gist model that cognitive psychologist Valerie Reyna and I have developed to explain the process of jury damage award decision making. Jurors' values constitute an important component of these and other models. I also describe the empirical research that documents and establishes the pervasive influence and content of community values in jury damage award judgments.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

55 William & Mary Law Review 935 (2014)In a recent article, The Political Puzzle of the Civil Jury, Jason Solomon questions whether the civil jury operates effectively as a political institution. Civil juries are said to perform multiple political functions. They inject community perspectives and values into legal decision making. They act as a check on government and corporate power. They legitimize the civil justice system. Finally, they promote greater civic engagement among jurors. Solomon concludes, however, that these claims about the civil jury's multiple political functions are overstated and understudied. He calls for more theoretical and empirical study of the civil jury's performance of its political functions.This Article offers a response to Solomon's piece, providing evidence about the political dimensions of jury damage award decision making. I argue that the damage award is a key part of the civil jury's political activity. Indeed, in my view, it is just as significant as the political nature of the civil jury's liability judgment, which up to now has been a more frequent topic of scholarly inquiry. This Article focuses on one of the dimensions Solomon identifies: the injection of community perspectives and values into legal decision making. I contend that damage awards and community values are deeply intertwined. The dollars that juries award, from the compensatory amounts they grant to auto accident victims to the punitive damages they deliver against large corporations, are very much products of community views and sentiments. In my view, damage awards constitute powerful political actions by the civil jury. Civil jury damage awards serve to check or endorse private power, whether it is power over one's own neighbors or over business corporations. To support my argument, I draw on theoretical accounts of jury decision making about damages, including the story model, insights from cultural cognition research, and a new gist model that cognitive psychologist Valerie Reyna and I have developed to explain the process of jury damage award decision making. Jurors' values constitute an important component of these and other models. I also describe the empirical research that documents and establishes the pervasive influence and content of community values in jury damage award judgments.

Key concepts: Jury, Politics, Law, Political science, Institution, Punitive damages, Sociology, Jury trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
What's it Worth? Jury Damage Awards as Community Judgments — Research Paper | ScholarLens