Tracing the Shadow of the Law: Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases

Tort reform has brought a renewed interest in civil juries. In fact, this reform movement is driven by the perception of a in the civil justice system, with jury verdicts being a major cause of that crisis. Juries, the reformers argue, are biased, capricious, and unpredictable. From the defendant's perspective, their verdicts seem to reflect no logic, but rather are the result of some kind of bizzare lottery (see O'Connell and Kelly, 1987).1 No matter what the situation or the facts of the situation, the reformers say, plaintiffs win and they win big. The result, according to the all too familiar refrain, is the insurance or liability crisis of the mid-1980s and its disastrous effects (see Huber, 1988; Daniels, 1989; Hayden, 1989). The criticisms are especially pointed for the high visibility, big ticket areas like medical malpractice, which are a focal point for the reform effort. Despite the attention drawn to such areas and the reformers' insistence that a exists