Are Punitive Damages Really Insignificant, Predictable, and Rational? A Comment on Eisenberg et al

A. Mitchell Polinsky ()

The Journal of Legal Studies, 1997, vol. 26, issue 2, 663-77

Abstract: This comment on an empirical study of punitive damages by Theodore Eisenberg and several coauthors makes three main points. First, contrary to what they imply, Punitive damages may be a significant factor in litigation despite the fact that only a small fraction of cases in their sample involve punitive damage judgments. Second, notwithstanding their interpretation, their results are consistent with the possibility that punitive damages are awarded on a random basis. Third, in opposition to their suggestion, punitive damages may not be rational even if the level of punitive damages is systematically and positively related to the level of compensatory damages. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468011 (application/pdf)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:663-77

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().