Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/242147 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2019
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] DANUBE: Law, Economics and Social Issues Review [ISSN:] 1804-8285 [Volume:] 10 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] De Gruyter [Place:] Warsaw [Year:] 2019 [Pages:] 199-219
Verlag: 
De Gruyter, Warsaw
Zusammenfassung: 
This paper assesses the widely held belief that damages for pain and suffering are random or arbitrary. In detail, we investigate whether damages for pain and suffering are systematically affected by individual-, injury- and procedural-specific characteristics and how important these factors are relative to each other. To uncover the predictability of these awards, we rely on a sample of German damages for pain and suffering awards including 2.244 verdicts. By estimating a standard regression model we observe that final awards are systematically influenced by the injury's conditions, by the court level the case is brought in and by the engagement of a lawyer. Our findings let us conclude that damages for pain and suffering and the respective assessment process within the German judicial system are largely reasonable and transparent rather than random.
Schlagwörter: 
Tort Law
Damages for Pain and Suffering
Civil Procedure
Predictability
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
888.92 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.