|
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
Duo Cum Faciunt Idem, Non Est Idem - Evidence from Austrian Pain and Suffering VerdictsMagdalena Flatscher-ThöniUMIT, Department of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment Andrea M. LeiterFaculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck Hannes WinnerUniversity of Salzburg - Department of Economics and Social Sciences; Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO); University of Oxford - Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; University of Innsbruck - Department of Economics & Statistics January 12, 2012 Abstract: We analyze the pricing of pain and suffering and, in particular, whether the corresponding compensations are affected by a court’s approach to value such damages. For this purpose, we use data on pain and suffering verdicts in Austria, where courts are generally free to choose between a.per diem and a lump sum scheme to assess payments on damages for pain.and suffering. We find significant higher payments under the lump sum regime, which are not vanishing even after controlling for individual- and injury-specific characteristics. Our evidence suggests that the observed difference between lump sum and per diem schemes mainly appears if the victims are female and exposed to multiple injuries and, to a lesser extent, to intensive past pain days.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 22 Keywords: tort law, pain and suffering, per diem calculation scheme, lump sum calculation scheme JEL Classification: K13, K41 working papers seriesDate posted: January 13, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.687 seconds
