•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

2007

Abstract

Tort reform has been largely driven by the executive and legislative branches of government. Governors have proposed and legislatures have enacted statutes that, for the most part, scale back on the ability of injured persons to recover from purported wrongdoers. Both the public perception and political rhetoric of tort reform are grounded in the images of runaway juries and frivolous litigation. The voices of politicians and interest groups shape the terms of the popular debate. Largely absent from the policy discussions are the voices of the one group of public officials who are in the best position to observe the system in action: trial judges. What do trial judges observe in the daily routine of tort litigation? How frequently do juries award damages that are out of line with the evidence of injuries? Do frivolous claims clog the civil docket? It would seem that the observations of trial judges on these points would be quite relevant in an informed policy discussion. The following essay provides a modest insight into the judicial perspective of jury performance. The trial judges in the state of Georgia were surveyed and asked a short series of questions regarding the frequency of excessive compensatory damage awards, punitive damage awards, and frivolous claims in tort litigation. The survey called for the responding judges to select from a set of close-ended choices. Additionally, many responding judges volunteered comments. The responses to the survey questions and the unsolicited comments reported in this Article indicate that Georgia trial judges observe few, if any, instances of runaway juries. Moreover, the large majority of responding judges reported observing few instances of frivolous tort claims, though some judges found this to be a more significant issue.

Download

Share

COinS