Topic
Damages
About: Damages is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 9365 publications have been published within this topic receiving 89750 citations. The topic is also known as: compensation award.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Findings suggest that discounting may be a somewhat more potent process than surcharging in the context of the present study, and possible explanations for these effects are discussed.
Abstract: This study examined whether special jury instructions or the bifurcation of liability and compensation decisions would counter the tendency for evidence concerning the defendant's liability to affect damages awards. Mock jurors made liability and award decisions in response to a case description in which the level of defendant responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries and the type or timing of damages instructions were systematically varied. Instructions not to discount awards for uncertainty about the defendant's fault and instructions not to increase awards to punish the defendant's carelessness reduced the impact of the defendant's conduct on awards, while bifurcation did not. Additional findings suggest, at least in the context of the present study, that discounting may be a somewhat more potent process than surcharging. Possible explanations for these effects are discussed.
27 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the conditions under which an environmental protection system based on extending liability to private financiers is welfare superior, inferior, or equivalent to an incentive regulatory scheme subject to capture by the regulatees.
Abstract: Using a formal political economy model with asymmetric information, we illustrate the conditions under which an environmental protection system based on extending liability to private financiers is welfare superior, inferior, or equivalent to a system based on an incentive regulatory scheme subject to capture by the regulatees We explicitly consider the following factors: the cost of care and its efficiency in reducing the probability of an environmental accident, the social cost of public funds, the net profitability of the risky activities, the level of damages, and the regulatory capture bias We characterize in such a parameter space the regions where one system dominates the other JEL classification: D82, K32
27 citations
TL;DR: This paper found that subjects who read that the act was done intentionally inflated their estimation of the damage done by that action (as compared to an identical, but unintentional, action) and this effect was serendipitously discovered in one study and conceptually replicated with different populations and different experimental designs in two subsequent studies.
Abstract: Subjects judged the damages caused by an act that was done intentionally, negligently or accidentally. Although the damages caused by the act were described in an identical way, subjects who read that the act was done intentionally inflated their estimation of the damage done by that action (as compared to an identical, but unintentional, action). This effect was serendipitously discovered in one study and conceptually replicated with different populations and different experimental designs in two subsequent studies. The experimental designs made certain explanations for the results less plausible, and the discussion assesses other possible explanations for the effect.
27 citations
TL;DR: Claims from cataract surgery in the NHS are extremely infrequent and consent, though essential, may not prevent a claim arising or resulting in damages.
Abstract: Aims To analyse the causes of malpractice claims related specifically to cataract surgery in the National Health Service in England from 1995 to 2008. Methods All the malpractice claims related to cataract surgery from 1995 to 2008 from the National Health Service Litigation Authority were analysed. Claims were classified according to causative problem. Total numbers of claims, total value of damages, mean level damages and paid:closed ratio (a measure of the likelihood of a claim resulting in payment of damages) were determined for each cause. Results Over the 14-year period, there were 324 cataract surgery claims with total damages of £1.97 million and mean damages for a paid claim of £19 900. Negligent surgery (including posterior capsule tear and dropped nucleus) was the most frequent cause for claims, while reduced vision accounted for the highest total and mean damages. Claims relating to biometry errors/wrong intraocular lens power were the second most frequent cause of claims and result in payment of damages in 62% of closed cases. The claims with the highest paid:closed ratio were inadequate anaesthetic (75%) and complications of anaesthetic injections including globe perforation (67%). Conclusions Claims from cataract surgery in the NHS are extremely infrequent. Consent, though essential, may not prevent a claim arising or resulting in damages. Refractive accuracy has significant medicolegal impact. Endophthalmitis can lead to successful claims if there is delay in diagnosis. Claims relating to inadequate anaesthesia or anaesthetic injection complications are particularly hard to defend.
27 citations