Comparative Negligence and Jury Behavior

Michael G. Shanley

ResearchPublished 1985

The law of comparative negligence provides that juries divide damages between the plaintiff and negligent defendants according to relative fault. The predecessor to this law, still in effect in nine states, is the contributory negligence law, which states that plaintiffs who contribute to their own injury in any way, should receive nothing. This paper examines the effect of the comparative negligence law with respect to the increase in awards to plaintiffs who take their case to trial. It analyzes 675 auto accident trials in San Francisco County in the 1970s, about half of which took place under the old contributory negligence law, and half under the new comparative negligence law. The analysis shows that the actual effect of the comparative negligence law is smaller than the potential effect, because juries do not strictly follow either law, but that it is still considerably higher than what current conventional wisdom would predict.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
96 pages
List Price
$30.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 1985
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 96
  • Paperback Price: $30.00
  • Document Number: P-7057-RGI

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Shanley, Michael G., Comparative Negligence and Jury Behavior, RAND Corporation, P-7057-RGI, 1985. As of September 13, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7057.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Shanley, Michael G., Comparative Negligence and Jury Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1985. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7057.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.