Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of the present study was to test several procedures that could be adopted for reducing unwanted variability in civil damage awards. Four methods for providing guidance to jurors (and judges) about the distribution of awards in comparable cases were compared to each other, to a no-guidance control, and to the capping of awards at a specified maximum, which has been the most commonly legislated “solution.” The findings of this study suggest several alternative solutions that are better able than caps to solve the problem of unwanted variability in awards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saks et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: