Although civil trial courts clearly perform a central institutional and societal role, the merits of allowing lay jurors to solve disputes has and continues to be the subject of much deliberation among academics, reformers, and policymakers. Moreover, the use of juries to solve most civil disputes allows members of the local community to determine winners and losers and appropriate compensation for injuries. Damage awards also perform the important function of punishing individuals, businesses, and organizations that engage in reckless or negligent behavior that harms others and encouraging them to cease said behavior.
These courts constitute one of the few institutions where ordinary people and groups with grievances can directly access the government to solve their disagreements, challenge wealthy and powerful businesses and organizations, and obtain a remedy for their injuries through monetary awards. Civil trials often pit “have-not” plaintiffs against the “haves” ( Galanter 1974 ). In civil cases, injured litigants, often individuals or groups with limited resources, bring suits against defendants who may possess “deep pockets,” asking juries to convert damages to dollars by determining both the winner and the appropriate compensation. By allowing injured parties to access the justice system and seek compensation for harms, the civil courts serve four primary purposes: 1) dispute resolution 2) creating predictability in societal actors’ behavior 3) deterring misconduct and modifying conduct and 4) allocating resources ( Shapiro 1981 ). I then discuss possible relationships between institutional variation and jury verdicts.Īlthough an infrequent topic of discussion, civil trial courts are important and powerful institutions that rely on judges and juries to settle disputes and prescribe (typically) monetary retribution for injuries. Meanwhile, Indiana utilizes institutional review boards, a type of reform where groups of medical professionals make a pre-trial determination about the merits of medical malpractice cases, with the proposed intent of reducing meritless malpractice trials. For example, Alabama has enacted 29 different tort reforms, second only to Texas in total reforms. I then use an original data collection of civil jury verdicts in four states (Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee) to examine variation in docket composition, winners and losers, and institutional design across the states, with specific attention to tort reforms. In order to begin to understand what these critically important courts do, I review legal academic and political science literature related to state court decision-making and case processing. Despite the constrained scholarly attention, especially in political science, state civil trial courts of general jurisdiction are the final arbiters of the law in most civil cases. Consequently, much of the debate relies on limited empirical evidence. Yet while the political conflict over the civil justice system continues, these courts remain severely understudied, largely due to a lack of data availability.
The most recent Republican Party Platform calls for additional tort reforms to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits and reduce consumer costs. This essay explores the function and role of state civil jury trials and the political and policy debates surrounding them.
0 kommentar(er)
