Punished, dead or alive

Empirical perspectives on awarding punitive damages against deceased defendants

Timothy R. Robicheaux, Brian H Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Punitive damages are a tool for punishing defendants who engage in reckless and wanton behaviors that cause injury to others. As with criminal punishment, goals of punitive damages include retribution, specific deterrence, and general deterrence. Unlike criminal punishment, however, some courts allow punitive damages to follow the death of defendants. To explore this issue, we first conducted a legal analysis of appellate court decisions concerning punitive damages against deceased defendants. While the majority of courts suggest that punitive damages against deceased individuals are not appropriate, some argue that favorable policy implications of allowing punitive damages to follow the defendant's death merit their survivability. Next, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effects of defendant injury severity, including death, on juror decisions in a punitive damages case. Consistent with some judicial reasoning, mock jurors' liability and damage awards were not influenced by a defendant's injury severity, but defendant death did influence participants' self-reported goals of their punitive damage awards. We conclude with a discussion of policy and research implications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)393-417
Number of pages25
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume16
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2010

Fingerprint

punitive damages
Punishment
Wounds and Injuries
death
Jurisprudence
deterrence
penalty
appellate court
court decision
Research
liability
damages
simulation
cause

Keywords

  • Civil law
  • Outcome severity
  • Punitive damages

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Punished, dead or alive : Empirical perspectives on awarding punitive damages against deceased defendants. / Robicheaux, Timothy R.; Bornstein, Brian H.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, 01.11.2010, p. 393-417.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f52b6730191c4b108eeb7a70419afd15,
title = "Punished, dead or alive: Empirical perspectives on awarding punitive damages against deceased defendants",
abstract = "Punitive damages are a tool for punishing defendants who engage in reckless and wanton behaviors that cause injury to others. As with criminal punishment, goals of punitive damages include retribution, specific deterrence, and general deterrence. Unlike criminal punishment, however, some courts allow punitive damages to follow the death of defendants. To explore this issue, we first conducted a legal analysis of appellate court decisions concerning punitive damages against deceased defendants. While the majority of courts suggest that punitive damages against deceased individuals are not appropriate, some argue that favorable policy implications of allowing punitive damages to follow the defendant's death merit their survivability. Next, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effects of defendant injury severity, including death, on juror decisions in a punitive damages case. Consistent with some judicial reasoning, mock jurors' liability and damage awards were not influenced by a defendant's injury severity, but defendant death did influence participants' self-reported goals of their punitive damage awards. We conclude with a discussion of policy and research implications.",
keywords = "Civil law, Outcome severity, Punitive damages",
author = "Robicheaux, {Timothy R.} and Bornstein, {Brian H}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0020933",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "393--417",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Punished, dead or alive

T2 - Empirical perspectives on awarding punitive damages against deceased defendants

AU - Robicheaux, Timothy R.

AU - Bornstein, Brian H

PY - 2010/11/1

Y1 - 2010/11/1

N2 - Punitive damages are a tool for punishing defendants who engage in reckless and wanton behaviors that cause injury to others. As with criminal punishment, goals of punitive damages include retribution, specific deterrence, and general deterrence. Unlike criminal punishment, however, some courts allow punitive damages to follow the death of defendants. To explore this issue, we first conducted a legal analysis of appellate court decisions concerning punitive damages against deceased defendants. While the majority of courts suggest that punitive damages against deceased individuals are not appropriate, some argue that favorable policy implications of allowing punitive damages to follow the defendant's death merit their survivability. Next, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effects of defendant injury severity, including death, on juror decisions in a punitive damages case. Consistent with some judicial reasoning, mock jurors' liability and damage awards were not influenced by a defendant's injury severity, but defendant death did influence participants' self-reported goals of their punitive damage awards. We conclude with a discussion of policy and research implications.

AB - Punitive damages are a tool for punishing defendants who engage in reckless and wanton behaviors that cause injury to others. As with criminal punishment, goals of punitive damages include retribution, specific deterrence, and general deterrence. Unlike criminal punishment, however, some courts allow punitive damages to follow the death of defendants. To explore this issue, we first conducted a legal analysis of appellate court decisions concerning punitive damages against deceased defendants. While the majority of courts suggest that punitive damages against deceased individuals are not appropriate, some argue that favorable policy implications of allowing punitive damages to follow the defendant's death merit their survivability. Next, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effects of defendant injury severity, including death, on juror decisions in a punitive damages case. Consistent with some judicial reasoning, mock jurors' liability and damage awards were not influenced by a defendant's injury severity, but defendant death did influence participants' self-reported goals of their punitive damage awards. We conclude with a discussion of policy and research implications.

KW - Civil law

KW - Outcome severity

KW - Punitive damages

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78549262364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78549262364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0020933

DO - 10.1037/a0020933

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 393

EP - 417

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 4

ER -