Vidmar N, Lee J, Cohen E, Stewart A
Duke Law School, Durham, NC 27708-0360, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 1994 Spring;12(2):149-60. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370120205.
Many critics of the tort system have accused juries of assessing larger awards against defendants perceived to have the ability to pay. Juries are said to be particularly prone to go after the 'deep pockets' of doctors in medical malpractice cases as compared to defendants found negligent in automobile accidents. This hypothesis was put to a test in an experiment that manipulated cause of the injury (medical malpractice versus negligent driving) and degree of possible contributing responsibility by the plaintiff (mandatory versus elective surgery and plaintiff as another driver or as a passenger). Responsibility ascriptions to the plaintiff differed across conditions, but jurors did not differentially award pain and suffering damages across conditions.
许多侵权行为制度的批评者指责陪审团对那些被认为有支付能力的被告判定更高的赔偿金额。据说，与在汽车事故中被认定有过失的被告相比，陪审团在医疗事故案件中特别倾向于追究医生的“深口袋”责任。这一假设在一项实验中得到了检验，该实验操纵了伤害原因（医疗事故与过失驾驶）以及原告可能承担的责任程度（强制手术与择期手术，以及原告是另一名司机还是乘客）。不同条件下对原告责任的认定有所不同，但陪审员在不同条件下对痛苦和折磨赔偿金的判定没有差异。
