ABSTRACT
In tort cases, once a liability determination is made, jurors face the difficult task of determining appropriate damages to award the plaintiff. Few instructions or guidelines are provided on how to award damages, and jurors must rely on their common sense and experience to translate the plaintiff’s loss and harm into financial compensation. Often, complex economic issues are involved, such as estimating the future stream of income of a young plaintiff. This study examines mock jurors’ common sense considerations in awarding damages in a wrongful death case. Jurors from King County, Washington read brief case summaries of a product liability, automobile negligence, or medical malpractice suit, in which the defendant’s liability was established. The gender and age of the decedent were systematically varied. Jurors awarded damages and responded to questions about the strategies used and factors considered. Case type had little impact on the magnitude or the process of awarding damages. Male decedents were awarded 188significantly more than similarly situated female decedents. Younger males were awarded significantly more than older males. Jurors were more likely to consider exponential strategies and factors when the decedent was a younger male. Most jurors conservatively multiplied annual earnings by a fixed number of years, often fewer than the decedent’s projected age of retirement. Certain strategies and factors used varied in response to the characteristics of the decedent.
