Comparative negligence laws: do jurors alter liability assignments to compensate for ‘unfair’ laws?

Abstract

Abstract

Legal scholars argue jurors are likely to nullify comparative negligence laws to ensure the plaintiff receives some compensation. However, there is little empirical evidence testing this proposition. The current research examined whether (1) jurors nullify the law when making a negligence decision, (2) jurors’ belief in a just world may moderate any possible effects, and (3) jurors understand negligence instructions. In Study 1, included a trial summary and one of three juror instructions: pure comparative, modified 50% threshold, or modified 51% threshold. Results generally indicated no impact of instruction type on liability, negligence, or damages. Mock jurors higher in belief in a just world attributed more liability to the plaintiff, were less likely to find the defendant negligent, and awarded fewer damages. In Study 2, we found participants generally understood the nuances of comparative negligence instructions, as indicated by both open-ended and multiple-choice responses. In Study 3, we lengthened the trial materials, added a fourth instruction condition (pure contributory negligence), and again assessed mock jurors’ understanding of the instructions. We again found little evidence of nullification, an influence of mock jurors’ just-world beliefs, and legal instruction competence.