Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Investigating The Justice System Response To Domestic Violence In Missouri, Mary M. Beck, Brandi L. Byrd, M. Meghan Davidson, Niels C. Beck, Gregory F. Petroski
Investigating The Justice System Response To Domestic Violence In Missouri, Mary M. Beck, Brandi L. Byrd, M. Meghan Davidson, Niels C. Beck, Gregory F. Petroski
Faculty Publications
One in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. Each year, 5.3 million domestic violence assaults occur in the United States alone and domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. Yet, despite the prevalence of domestic violence, little empirical research on the justice system's response to it exists. This paper seeks to describe a state funded project that was created to assess and compare responses to domestic violence throughout the state of Missouri. The project lasted for three years and was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) professors and students.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
Legislation is pending in both houses of Congress to transfer medical malpractice cases from civil juries to administrative health courts. The Institute of Medicine also wants to take malpractice cases away from juries through a system of binding early settlement offers. Each of these proposals is premised on the assumption that juries lack the capacity to resolve medical malpractice disputes fairly. This article evaluates that premise. It collects and synthesizes three decades of empirical research on jury decision-making, updating the seminal review done by Neil Vidmar over a decade ago.Four important findings emerge from the data. First, negligence matters. Plaintiffs …
What We Know About Malpractice Settlements, Philip G. Peters Jr.
What We Know About Malpractice Settlements, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
The enclosed article is the first comprehensive synthesis of two decades of empirical research on medical malpractice settlement. The portrait that emerges from this synthesis is both more reassuring and more complex than popular portrayals. Although the fit is not perfect, the merits generally drive the settlement process. Weak claims consistently fare the worst, toss-ups cases do better, and strong cases have the most success.Prior scholarship on malpractice outcomes has understated the strength of this correlation because it has focused principally on the impact of negligence on the settlement rates and has largely ignored the importance of settlement amount. The …