Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/242147 
Year of Publication: 
2019
Citation: 
[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
Publisher: 
De Gruyter, Warsaw
Abstract: 
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.
Subjects: 
Tort Law
Damages for Pain and Suffering
Civil Procedure
Predictability
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size
888.92 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.