At last, here is an empirical volume that addresses head-on the thorny
issue of tort reform in the US. Ongoing policy debates regarding tort
reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to
reevaluate the civil jury's role in meting out civil justice. Some
reform advocates have called for removing certain types of cases (e.g.,
highly technical ones relying exclusively on expert testimony, such as
malpractice or antitrust litigation) or certain types of judgments
(e.g., punitive damages) from the jury's purview; yet much of the policy
debate has proceeded in the relative absence of data on what the effects
of such reforms would be. A number of post-reform studies have
demonstrated that contrary to expectation, tort reform may not have the
desired effects. In addressing these issues, the present volume takes an
empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It stands
at the vanguard of the debate and provides information relevant to both
state and national civil justice systems.