ABSTRACT
This chapter summarizes relevant aspects of the law and the empirical research literature. The law governing general damages offers no real guidance to jurors or anyone else called upon to award damages at trial. The chapter describes the research methods and design of study. It presents the results of these analyses. In short, the models evidence a remarkable degree of similarity among all groups of decision makers, plus a high degree of predictability, in regard to their judgments of injury severity. The chapter also presents the empirical findings and their policy implications. The findings suggest that the differences between jurors' awards and those of the other groups do not reflect fundamental differences in decision making, but rather a loss of consistency in translating perceptions of severity into damages awards. General damages are awarded to compensate plaintiffs for physical pain, mental suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and other similar harms.
