Post on 20-Jul-2020
Another Brick in the Wall :An Empirical Look at Tort Litigation in the 1990's .
Thomas A_ EatonJ .Alton Hosch Professor of Law,
The University of Georgia
Susette M_ TalaricoProfessor of Political Science and Director of Criminal Justice Studies,
The University of Georgia
Prepared for The Georgia Civil Justice Foundation January 31, 2000
CONTENTS
I
Introduction p .l
111 .
Methodology p.4
A-
Site Selection n.4
B .
Data Collection p.5
C .
The Data Set p.6
0I
Filing Patterns n]'
A.
Number of Tort Claims Filed During l904-9710
B .
Tort
asFilings u Percentage of Civil Litigationp.10
C.
Tort
Population p. 12
D.
Conclusions p. 16
IV.
Characteristics
Claims Filed in Georgia Courtsp. 16Georgia
A.
Type of Claims p.17
13 .
Indicators (if Complexity
.n20
V.
Disposition Patterns p.21
A.
Trials p.22
B.
Settlements -- n.2L3
C.
Other Methods of DispositionDisposition
p.24
D .
Percentages of Tort Cases Disposed Within One and Two Years of p.20
III .
Trial Outcomes p.28
AV
Data Set of Cases In Which Outcomes Could Be Determinedp.29
B .
Trial Outcomes fbr"All Tortsm" p.30
C.
Variations in Trial Outcomes By Jurisdictionp.31
D.
Variations in Trial Outcomes By Type of Claimp.33
VII . Damage Awards p.34
A.
Compensatory Damages p.35
1 .
Compensatory Damage Awards Generallyp.35
2.
Variations in Compensatory Damage Awards By Type ofClaim p.38
B.
Punitive Damages p.40
VIII . Conclusions : Another Brick in the Wall p.41
A.
There Is No Evidence of a "Tort Crisis" in Georgiap.41
B .
An Emerging National Picture p.42
FIGURES
Figure 1
Aggregate for Tort Filings in Selected Courtsp.8
Figure 2A
Tort Claims as a Percentage of Civil Filings :Superior Courts 1994-1997 p.12
Figure 2B
Tort Claims as a Percentage of Civil Filings :State Courts :Cobb and Gwinnett (94-97) ; Fulton (95-97)p.12
Figure 2C
Tort Claims as a Percentage of Civil Filings :Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett: State and Superior Combinedp.12
Figure 3
Tort Filings per 100,000 Population p.15
Figure 4A
Type of Claim: Aggregate Superior Court Filings 1994-1997p.17
Figure 4B
Type of Claim: State Court Filings 1994-1997(does not include Fulton data for 1994) p.18
Figure 4C
Type of Claim: Combined State and Superior Court Filings inCobb, Fulton and Gwinnett Counties 1995-1997p.18
Figure 5A
Type of Disposition : Superior Courts 1994-1997 .p26
Figure 5B
Type of Disposition: State Courts 1994-1997p.26
Figure 6A
Jury Trial Outcomes : Superior Courts 1994-1997p.30
Figure 6B
Jury Trial Outcomes : State Courts 1994-1997p.30
Figure 7A
Bench Trial Outcomes : Superior Courts 1994-1997p.31
Figure 7B
Bench Trial Outcomes : State Courts 1994-1997p.31
Figure 8
Outcome Variations in Superior Court Jury Trialsp.31
Figure 9
Outcomes in Jury Trials: Comparison of State andSuperior Courts p.33
Figure 10
Summary of Compensatory Damage Awards in Jury Trialsp.36
Figure 11
Summary of Compensatory Damage Awards in Bench Trialsp.36
Figure 12
Comparison of National and Georgia Median TortAwards in Jury Trials p. 39
Table 1
TABLES
IA:
Proportion of Torts Cases in General Civil Caseload - Superior Courts: 1990-1997
1B :
Proportion of Tort Cases in General Civil Caseload - State Courts: 1994-1997
1C : Proportion of Tort Cases in General Civil Caseload - Cobb, Fulton & Gwinnett :1995-1997
1D: Comparison of Changes in Filing Rates and Population: Irwin and Oconee: 1994-1997
1E :
Comparison of Changes in Filing Rates and Population: Cobb, Fulton andGwinnett: 1995-1997
1F:
Ratio of Tort Filings in State Court to Superior Court: Cobb, Fulton & Gwinnett :1994-1997
Table 2
2A: Rate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population - Superior Courts: 1994-1997
2B :
Rate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population - State Courts : 1994-1997
2C:
Rate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population - Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett : 1995-1997
Table 3
3A: Type of Tort Claim in Superior Courts : 1994-1997
3B : Type of Tort Claim in State Courts : 1994-1997
3C : Type of Tort Claim in Cobb, Fulton & Gwinnett: 1995-1997
Table 4
4A :
Type of Litigant in Superior Court : 1994-1997
4B :
Type of Litigant in State Court: 1994-1997
4C :
Number of Litigants in Tort Litigation in Superior Court : 1994-1997
4D:
Number of Litigants in Tort Litigation- State Court : 1994-1997
Table 5
5A: Number of Attorneys- Superior Court: 1994-1997
5B : Number of Attorneys- State Court: 1994-1997
Table 6
6A : Type of Disposition- Superior Courts : 1994-1997
6B : Type of Disposition by Type of Claim - Superior Courts: 1994-1997
6C :
Type of Disposition- State Courts : 1994-1997
6D:
Type of Disposition by Type of Claim - State Courts: 1994-1997
6E:
Type of Disposition by Type of Claim - Superior & State Courts : 1994-1997
Table 7
7A: Proportion of Cases Disposed within Particular Time Periods : Superior Courts
7B : Proportion of Cases Disposed within Particular Time Periods : State Courts
7C: Proportion of Cases Disposed within Particular Time Periods : Cobb, Fulton &Gwinnett
Table 8
8A: Proportion and Outcome of Jury Trials - Superior Courts : 1994-1997
8B : Outcome of Jury Trials by Type of Claim - Superior Courts: 1994-1997
8C : Proportion and Outcome of Jury Trials - State Courts: 1994-1997
8D: Outcome of Jury Trials by Type of Claim - State Courts: 1994-1997
8E: Outcome of Jury Trials by Type of Claim - Superior & State Courts : 1994-1997
Table 9
9A: Proportion and Outcome of Bench Trials - Superior Courts: 1994-1997
9B :
Outcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim - Superior Courts : 1994-1997
9C:
Proportion and Outcome of Bench Trials - State Courts : 1994-1997
9D: Outcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim - State Courts: 1994-1997
9E :
Outcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim - Superior & State Courts: 1994-1997
Table 10
1OA: Compensatory Damages : Superior and State Jury Trials
10B : Compensatory Damages by Type of Claim: Superior and State Jury Trials
1OC : Compensatory Damages : Superior and State Bench Trials
IOD: Compensatory Damages by Type of Claim : Superior and State Bench Trials
Table 11
1 IA : Punitive Damages in Superior Court : 1994-1997
1 1B : Punitive Damages in State Court : 1994-1997
I .
Introduction
It has been several years since we prepared our first "Profile of Tort Litigation in
Georgia".' Our first study examined data from more than 2,100 tort cases filed in the Superior
Courts of Bibb, Gwinnett, Irwin and Oconee counties between 1990 and 1993 . We also analyzed
data collected by the National Center for State Courts on tort cases disposed in Fulton County
Superior Court during fiscal year 1992 . At that time we found that tort claims accounted for a
small percentage of total civil filings ; relatively simple automobile accidents made up a large
majority of all tort cases filed ; more than two-thirds of all tort cases filed were settled while less
than seven percent went to trial ; the average case was disposed in less than two years from the
date of filing; plaintiffs prevailed in slightly more than half the cases that were tried to a jury ;
when the plaintiff did prevail, compensatory damages tended to be modest in amount ; and
outside of Fulton County, punitive damages were rarely awarded?
We concluded our first study with a plea for the state to develop "an ongoing process of
data collection and analysis" so that policymakers would have access to the information
necessary to evaluate various tort and civil justice reform initiatives_ 3 Although a proposed
system of data collection is under active consideration, one is not currently in place .' Yet,
'Thomas A. Eaton and Susette M_ Talarico, A Profile of Tort Litigation in Georgia andReflections on Tort Reform, 30 Ga. L. Rev . 627 (1996) .
21d ., at 669 .
3Id., at 691 .
4A special committee of the State Bar issued a report recommending a system ofimproved data collection . 1997-1998 Court Filings Committee, Report and Recommendations(May 15, 1998) . The system recommended by the Court Filings Committee was based on forms
1
political interest 5 in tort reform has not diminished and policymakers want to know whether the
profile described in our first study remains accurate .
It is against this backdrop that we undertook to update and expand upon our original
research. We have updated our study by collecting data from tort cases filed in the Superior
Courts of Bibb, Gwinnett, Irwin, and Oconee counties between 1994 and 1997 . Thus, for these
four counties we now have data regarding the filing and disposition of tort cases for an eight year
period . We also have collected data from tort cases filed in Cobb and Fulton county Superior
to be filled out by attorneys at the time of filing and disposition of cases . Legislationimplementing such a system was introduced in the General Assembly in 1999, but was notenacted. This bill was reintroduced in the 2000 General Assembly as Senate Bill 176_ At thetime of this writing, no action had been taken .
5A "hot topic" for tort reform in 1999 was so-called Y2K legislation . Both Congress andat least a dozen states passed statutes in 1999 that purport to curtail potential tort suits stemmingfrom the Year 2000 computer bug. See, e.g., Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, Pub .L. No. 106-37 (106th Cong ., 1st Session (1999) ; S .B. 983, 1999 Sess . (Va. 1999) (limitingliability and damages for Year 2000 losses, effective April 7, 1999) ; H.B . 1295, 62nd Leg ., 19991st Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1999) (limiting liability for Year 2000 losses and providing one year statuteof limitations for civil actions, effective July 1, 1999) . For a listing and summary of other stateY2K statutes, see American Tort Reform Association, 1999 State Tort Reform Enactments(Summer 1999) .
Several states also enacted more general types of tort reform legislation . See, e.g., H.B .775, 1999 Reg . Sess. (Fla. 1999) (limiting punitive damages, modifying joint and severalliability, product liability, vicarious liability, and other tort reforms ; effective Oct . 1, 1999); H.B .74, 54th Leg., 1999 Gen . Sess . (Utah 1999) (clarifying joint and several liability ; effectiveretroactive to March 3, 1998) ; S .B . 137, 1999 Reg . Sess . (Ala. 1999) (placing legislative caps onpunitive damage awards ; effective Aug . 6, 1999) .
There have been important recent judicial developments as well . Several recent statesupreme court decisions have struck down tort reform legislation under the state's constitution .See, e.g ., State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St . 3d 451, 715N.E.2d 1062 (1999) (comprehensive tort reform act violates separation of powers provisions ofthe Ohio constitution); Lakin v. Senco Prods ., Inc., 329 Ore . 62, 987 P .2d 463 (1999) (statutorycap on non-economic damages violates plaintiffs constitutional right to jury trial) ; Best v.Taylor Machine Works, 689 N .E .2d 1057, 1104 (111 . 1997) (statutory cap on non-economiccompensatory damages violates state constitutional provisions pertaining to special legislation,equal protection, due process, separation of powers, right to a jury trial, and right to a remedy) .
2
Courts between 1994-97 . Finally, we have collected data from State Court tort filings in Cobb,
Fulton, and Gwinnett counties . This is the first time a study has included State Court filings .
The State Court data allow us to make a comparison of tort litigation patterns between State and
Superior Courts in the metropolitan Atlanta area and provide a more complete picture of the tort
litigation landscape .
As described in more detail below, our findings are largely consistent with those from our
first study . Perhaps the most striking difference pertains to tort filings in State Courts . There
were much greater numbers of tort cases brought in the State Courts we examined than in the
Superior Courts. When State Court filings are included, the average number of tort suits filed per
100,000 population is much greater than previously estimated . State Court filings do not,
however, substantially alter the overall profile of tort litigation . Tort claims remain a relatively
small percentage of total civil filings ; there have not been any large increases in the number of
tort filings between 1994-97 ; when adjusted for population changes, the rate of tort filings
actually declined slightly ; suits arising from automobile accidents still account for more than
sixty percent of all claims filed ; more than 50% of all tort cases are disposed within one year of
filing and almost 80% are disposed within two years ; most cases are settled while fewer than 5%
go to trial ; plaintiffs prevail in slightly more than half the jury trials (although this varies by
location and type of claim) and enjoy an even higher win rate in bench trials; when the plaintiff
does prevail, compensatory damages tend to be modest; and punitive damage awards are
exceedingly rare .
3
Our findings are consistent with those of other recent empirical studies . 6 Collectively,
this growing body of research indicates that the tort system in operation is much different from
the one portrayed in the popular and political rhetoric of tort reform . There is no evidence of an
explosion in tort filings and few signs of runaway juries .
II.
Methodology
A.
Site Selection
Our original study included Bibb, Gwinnett, Irwin and Oconee counties . Our present
study includes those counties with Cobb and Fulton counties added to the mix . We collected
data from every tort case filed in the Superior Courts of these six counties between 1994 through
6See, e.g ., Carol J. DeFrances et al., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Civil Justice Survey ofState Courts, 1996 : Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties (1999) [hereinafter cited asDeFrances II] ; Marika F.X. Litras & Carol J . DeFrances, Bureau of Justice Statistics, FederalJustice Statistics Program: Federal Tort Trials and Verdicts, 1996-97 (1999) [hereinafter cited asLitras & DeFrances] (analyzing 3,023 tort jury and bench trials in U .S . district courts during1996 and 1997) ; Deborah J. Merritt & Kathryn A . Barry, Is the Tort System in Crisis? NewEmpirical Evidence 60 Ohio St . L. J. 315 (1999) [hereinafter cited as Merritt & Barry] (analyzingcivil jury verdicts in one Ohio county for twelve years) ; Samuel R. Gross & Kent D. Syverud,Don't Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement, 44 U .C.L.A. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1996)[hereinafter cited as Gross & Syverud] (analyzing 882 California civil jury verdicts over tworepresentative years) ; Erik Moller, Trends in Civil Jury Verdicts Since 1985 xiii (RAND 1996)[hereinafter cited as Moller] (analyzing civil jury verdicts in fifteen courts of general jurisdictionin six states between 1985 and 1994) ; Carol J. DeFrances et . al., Bureau of Justice Statistics,Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 : Civil Jury Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties(1995) [hereinafter cited as DeFrances 1] (random sampling of tort cases disposed in FY 1992 in45 courts of general jurisdiction in large counties) ; Steven K. Smith et. al., Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 : Tort Cases in Large Counties (1995)[hereinafter cited as Smith et . al.] (sampling of tort cases disposed in FY 1992 in courts ofgeneral jurisdiction in 45 large counties) .
4
1997 . Additionally, we collected information from tort cases filed in the State Courts of Cobb,
Fulton and Gwinnett counties . We originally intended to include Bibb State Court in our study,
but the records from that court were damaged by a flood and were not readily accessible . Due to
the large number of cases filed annually in Fulton County State Court and the fact that some of
the 1994 files were in storage, we limited our data collection there to a three year period, 1995-
97 . We covered a four year period (1994-97) for the other State and Superior courts .
Although the study sites were not selected in a statistically random fashion, they do
reflect different regions and types of communities within the state. Fulton County is the heart of
metropolitan Atlanta and accounts for the greatest number of tort filings in the state . Cobb and
Gwinnett counties are large suburban communities adjoining Atlanta . These three counties
account for more than 51 % of the population of metropolitan Atlanta during the time period of
our study.' Bibb County is home to the City of Macon and represents a sizeable urban area in
middle Georgia . Irwin is a small, rural community in southwest Georgia, and Oconee is a
historically rural county in the northeastern part of the state that is undergoing considerable
residential development. Collectively, these six counties offer a good picture of tort litigation in
Georgia courts .
B.
Data Collection
5
7The United States Bureau of the Census estimated that the population of metropolitanAtlanta in 1996 was 3,541,230 . Georgia Statistical Abstract 1998-99, p . 3 (Selig Center forEconomic Growth, University of Georgia 1998) . The estimated populations for Cobb, Fultonand Gwinnett counties for 1996 was 551,059, 772,540, and 500,816 respectively .
Data were collected by law students under the supervision of the two of us . Data
collection and verification procedures in research of this nature are time consuming and labor
intensive processes . The law students inspected court records of every tort case filed in the State
and Superior courts of the six counties during the time period included in this study . Thus, our
study is based on a complete set of cases and does not involve sampling. The law students
extracted seventeen fields of information and entered them on to a coding instrument we
developed . Our coding instrument was designed to be compatible with similar instruments used
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in their
national studies . 8 The coding instrument included information regarding the parties, attorneys,
type of claims, method and timing of disposition, outcome of bench and jury trials, and damage
awards .
Information contained in individual coding instruments was used to build a data base .
We verified the accuracy of individual computer files with random spot checking . Coding errors
were identified and corrected . We then conducted preliminary statistical tests as a second
measure of reliability. When necessary, the original court records were reexamined to clarify any
ambiguity. A small number of coding errors were identified and corrected . The final data base
was then constructed and analyzed_
C.
The Data Set
'In fact, our student researchers also collected data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS) and National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in Fulton County as part of their recentnational study of tort litigation in large urban jurisdictions . See DeFrances II, supra note 6 .
6
Our final data set consists of over 25,000 tort cases filed in the State or Superior Courts
of the six counties between 1994-97 . Of the total of 25,561 tort cases included in this study,
7,881 were filed in the six Superior Courts and 17,680 were filed in the three State Courts .
Bench or jury trials disposed of 984 of these cases . Data were missing as to the outcome of 155
of these trials . We have information regarding the outcome of 829 trials . More specifically, our
data set includes outcome information on 141 bench trials and 688 jury trials . Of these bench
trials, 119 were conducted in State Courts and 22 were conducted in Superior Courts . Our data
also set includes information regarding the outcomes of 449 State Court and 239 Superior Court
jury trials . We also have information on 449 damage awards rendered in bench and jury trials .
Of these damage awards, 14 were made in bench trials in Superior Courts, 106 were made in
Superior Court jury trials, 94 were rendered in State Court bench trials, and 235 were made in
State Court jury trials .
Although not without its limitations,9 our data set is one of the most extensive created for
any State. It is not based on sampling but on individual inspection of every court filing for the
years covered in the study. It also includes both State and Superior Court filings .
III .
Filing Patterns
9Our sites were not randomly selected and there were a small number of files that werenot available or in which some information was not contained . Moreover, some of the datacollected required students to exercise an element of judgment . For example, students wereasked to identify the primary "type of claim" when the Complaint may have alleged multiplecauses of action . Additionally, some law suits might be classified as a "tort" or something else,e.g ., breach of contract. Business tort and fraud claims may not be fully represented in our dataset . We are confident, however, our data are complete and accurate with regard to physicalinjury torts .
7
Our profile begins with a description of filing patterns. This portion of our study will
detail the absolute number of tort filings, tort filings as a percentage of all civil filings, and
changes, if any, in these patterns over time and adjusted for changes in population . We will note
some differences in filing patterns by jurisdiction (e.g ., Cobb or Gwinnett counties) and level of
court (e.g ., Superior or State) . The overall picture, however, is one of stability . By any
measure, there does not appear to be any "explosion" in the number or rate of tort filings .
A .
Number of Tort Claims Filed During 1994-97
There were 1963 tort cases filed in the six Superior Courts included in our study in 1994 .
The number of filings increased slightly each year reaching 2075 tort suits filed in 1997 . Table
I A. A far greater number of tort cases were filed in three State Courts included in our study . In
1995, there were 5226 tort claims filed in the State Courts of Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett
counties . The number of tort filings in those State Courts also rose slightly reaching 5317 filings
in 1997. Table 1 B . In 1995, there were 6878 of
tort filings in the combined Superior and State
Courts of Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties .
By 1997, the number of tort filings in these
courts had increased slightly to 7080. Table 1 C .
Thus, there was a slight increase in the absolute
number of tort filings in both Superior and State
Courts during this time period . See Figure 1 .
8
9000
7000 -
6000 -
5000 -
4000 -
3000 -
2000 -
1000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997
All Six Superior Courts Combined•
Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett : State Courts Combined•
Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett : State &Superior Combined
Figure 1 Aggregate Tort Filings in Selected Courts .(Source : Tables IA-C) .
These data prompt two comments . First, far greater numbers of tort cases were filed in
the three State Courts we examined than in the six Superior Courts . In fact, in any given year
there were more tort cases filed in Fulton County State Court than the combined filings in the six
Superior Courts included in this study . Compare Table 1A and 1B . Moreover, there were many
more filings in the State Court than in the Superior Court of the same county . In the aggregate,
there were 3 tort cases filed in State Court for every 1 filed in the corresponding Superior Court .
Table 1F .
State Courts are created by the General Assembly pursuant to local legislation . There are
currently 66 State Courts in the State of Georgia . All major urban and many smaller counties
have state courts . 10 State Court jurisdiction over civil matters is not limited by the amount in
controversy," so that the most complex tort cases involving the highest potential awards may be
tried in State Court . Given the scope of their jurisdiction and the volume of tort cases they
handle, one cannot get a complete picture of tort litigation in Georgia without accounting for
State Courts. Yet, most prior studies of Georgia tort litigation, including our own, have relied
on data extracted exclusively from Superior Court records .'2 Clearly, such studies are incomplete
and State Courts should be given more attention in the future .
Second, although the data reflect slight increases in the number of tort filings in both
Superior and State Courts, there are variations among jurisdictions and between courts within a
1°For a complete listing of State Courts, see Judicial Council of Georgia, AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, 1998 Annual Report On The Work Of The Georgia Courts 23-24 (1998) .
"O.C.G.A. § 15-7-4(a)(2) .
12See, e.g ., Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1 ; DeFrances II, supra note 6 ; DeFrances I, supranote 6 .
9
jurisdiction . For example, tort filings increased steadily in Gwinnett Superior Court, but
declined each year in Fulton Superior Court . Table IA_ One might hypothesize that the decline
in Fulton County Superior Court tort filings may have been offset by increases in Fulton County
State Court. However, tort filings in Fulton County State Court also declined each of the three
years we examined. Table 1B . Thus, while Fulton County remains the jurisdiction with the
greatest number of tort suits, the absolute numbers of such cases have declined steadily over the
four years we studied. The number of tort suits filed annually in Cobb County Superior Court
remained remarkably stable over the four year period, but tort filings increased each year in Cobb
County State Court. Compare Table IA with Table 1B .
We have characterized the increase in the absolute number of tort filings in Superior and
State courts as "slight" . We will now put that characterization into perspective by looking first at
tort claims as a percentage of total civil litigation and then at filing rates adjusted for population .
B.
Tort Filings as a Percentage of Civil Litigation
While the absolute number of tort filings in Superior Courts increased slightly between
1994 and 1997, the number of total civil filings also increased . Tort cases accounted for a
relatively small percentage of total civil filings in each of the Superior Courts we examined . In
the aggregate, tort claims constituted 5 .1 % of the civil filings in the six Superior Courts studied
over the four year period . Table IA . Our previous study reported tort cases were 4 .9% of civil
filings between 1990 and 1993_ The difference between the 5 .1% figure reported here and the
4.9% figure from our previous study is due to our inclusion of Fulton County where, as noted
1 0
below, tort claims account for a higher percentage of civil filings in Superior Court . One of the
most striking feature of the two studies is the remarkable stability in tort filings over an eight
year period of time . There were, of course, some variations among jurisdictions . Tort cases
accounted for a higher percentage of civil filings in Fulton (6 .4%) and Bibb (6_3%) counties than
in Cobb (3 .6%) or Gwinnett (4.1%) counties. Table 1A .
Tort filings in State Courts also appear quite stable . We have complete information on
the combined tort filings in Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett State Courts for 1995-97. For this three
year period, tort cases accounted for 7 .2% of all civil filings with little change from year to year .
Table 1B . Not surprisingly, tort claims constitute a higher percentage of the State Court civil
docket as compared to that of the Superior Court because of the large number of domestic
relations matters that must be brought in Superior Court ." While the filing patterns in State
Courts in the aggregate appear quite stable, there were local variations . Tort cases accounted for
12.8% of civil filings in Gwinnett State Court, but only 4.9% of civil filings in Cobb State Court
during the same four year period. Table 1B .
Perhaps the most complete picture of tort cases as percentage of civil filings can be
gleaned from the combined State and Superior Court filings . We have such data for a three year
period in Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties. In the aggregate, tort cases account for 6 .5% of
the civil filings in the State and Superior courts of those three counties from 1995 through 1997 .
Table 1C .
13Superior Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of divorce proceedings . Ga. Const., Art. VI,§ IV, 1 1 . More than twice as many domestic relations cases were filed in Superior Courts in1997 than all other types of civil actions combined. Judicial Council of Georgia, AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, 1998 Annual Report On The Work Of The Georgia Courts 21 (1998) .
1 1
The percentage of tort claims in the overall civil docket of the six Superior Courts, three
State Courts, and the combined State and Superior Courts is reflected in Figures 2A-C .
94 .9%4W 5 .1%
•
Tort Filings•
Other Civil Filings
Figure 2A Tort Claims as aPercentage of Civil Filings :Superior Courts 1994-97 (Source :Table I A) .
92 .8%
•
Tort Filings•
Other Civil Filings
Figure 2B Tort Claims as aPercentage of Civil Filings : StateCourts: Cobb & Gwinnett (94-97) ;Fulton (95-97). (Source : Table I B) .
93 .5%
•
Tort Filings•
Other Civil Filings
Figure 2C Tort Claims as aPercentage of Civil Filings: Cobb,Fulton & Gwinnett : State &Superior Combined . (Source :Table1 C) .
C . Tort Filings Adjusted for Population
As noted previously, the absolute number of tort filings increased slightly between 1994
and 1997. The population in each county included in our study also increased during this time
period. The population of Irwin and Oconee counties increased at a much faster rate than the
rate of tort filings in each of the four years included in our study . The population in Irwin
County grew by 4 .5% between 1994 and 1997, while the number of tort filings grew by only
1 .3%. Table I D . In Oconee County the number of tort filings increased by 3 .5%, as compared
to a 14% increase in population . Table 1 D. The same pattern emerges from the metropolitan
Atlanta data . There were 202 more tort filings in the combined State and Superior Courts of
Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties in 1997 as compared to 1995 . Table 1 C. The combined
1 2
population of these three counties grew by 90,920 during this time period . 14 In each county
individually, the percentage increase in population growth greatly exceeded the percentage
increase in tort filings in each of the three years for which we have complete State and Superior
Court data. Table 1E . For these three counties combined, the population grew by 5 .4% between
1995 and 1997, while the percentage increase in the number of tort filings was a barely
perceptible .1 %. Table 1E .
A common measure of comparative litigation rates is the number of filings per 100,000
population." As Irwin and Oconee counties do not have State Courts, all tort claims in these
jurisdictions are filed in Superior Courts . Over an eight year period, the number of tort suits filed
per 100,000 population in these counties declined slightly . In our previous study, we reported
that between 1990 and 1993 an average of 144 .81 tort cases were filed per 100,000 population in
Irwin county . The corresponding figure for Oconee county was 150 .35 tort filings per 100,000 . 16
Between 1994 and 1997 the average number of tort filings per 100,000 population in Irwin
(134.1) and Oconee (148 .4) counties had actually declined. Table 2A .
The picture in Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties is somewhat more complex, but the
data also reveal a slight decline in filing rates adjusted for population . As previously noted, a far
greater number of tort suits are filed in the State Courts of these counties than in their respective
Superior Courts . Previous estimates of Georgia tort filing rates per 100,000 population,
14Georgia Statistical Abstract 1998-99, p . 3 (Selig Center for Economic Growth,University of Georgia 1998) .
"See, e.g ., Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 645 ; Smith, supra note 6, at 7 .
16Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 645 .
13
including our own, were based exclusively on filings in Superior Courts .' This methodology has
led to a serious underestimation of tort filing rates per population . The Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the National Center for State Courts estimated a filing rate in Fulton County in
1992 of 221 per 100,000 . 18 When State and Superior court filings are combined, the actual filing
rate is much larger . For example, we calculate an average estimated tort filing rate of 593 .5 per
100,000 in Fulton County between 1995-97 . Table 2C .
A more accurate picture of tort filings adjusted for population in Cobb, Fulton and
Gwinnett counties is found in Table 2C . Filing rates per 100,000 population varied among these
counties over the three year period. Filing rates per 100,000 population increased between 1995
and 1997 in both Cobb and Gwinnett counties, but declined each year in Fulton county . Table
2C. In the aggregate, however, the tort filings per 100,000 in these three counties actually
declined slightly from 408 .6 per 100,000 in 1995 to 399 per 100,000 in 1997 . Table 2C .
These data prompt three observations . First, an accurate assessment of tort filing rates
must include State Court data where applicable .- The failure to include State Court filings in
previous studies has produced a large under-estimation of filing rates in metropolitan Atlanta .
Second, the increase in filing rates per 100,000 in Cobb and Gwinnett counties coupled with the
decline in Fulton County may signal a shift in forums . We have no way of ascertaining the cause
of this shift . Perhaps plaintiffs' counsel are more comfortable today than in the past in filing in
these suburban counties . Perhaps corporations are relocating their registered agents to move
'See note 15, supra .
"Smith, supra note 6, at 7. We calculated an average of 140 .4 tort claims filed per100,000 population in Fulton County Superior Court between 1994 and 1997. Table 2A .
1 4
venue out of Fulton County .'`' At this point, we can only identify an apparent shift in the location
of tort litigation but cannot explain why it is occurring .
Our third observation is perhaps the most important with regard to understanding current
tort filing patterns . The data do not reveal any real increases in filing rates . The slight increases
in the absolute number of tort filings are more than offset by increases in population . In both the
rural counties (Irwin and Oconee) and metropolitan Atlanta (Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett
counties), the number of tort filings per 100,000 declined slightly during the period of this study .
Although the absence of State Court data make
us cautious about making broad generalizations
regarding filing patterns in Bibb County, there is
also no indication of an increase in tort filing
rates in Bibb County Superior Court . Table 2A . 20
The rate of tort filings per 100,000
population for Irwin, Oconee and Cobb-Fulton-
Gwinnett counties over time is depicted in Figure
3 .
191n Georgia, a corporation may be sued in the county where it maintains its registeredoffice or in the county where the cause of action originated, provided that the corporation has anoffice and does business in that county . O .C.G.A. § 14-2-510 (1999) .
20Filing rates per 100,000 population in Bibb County Superior Court have variedconsiderably over the eight year period between 1990 and 1998 . The filing rate per 100,000population ranged from a low of 133 .87 in 1990 to a high of 176 .13 in 1992. Eaton & Talarico,supra note 1, at 701 (Table 6) . The average Bibb County Superior Court filing rate adjusted forpopulation between 1993 and 1997 is 153 . Table 2A. Thus, our current data do not reflect anyincrease in filing rates in Bibb County Superior Court between our first and current study .
1 5
500
400 -
300 -
200
100-1
01990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Irwin Superior Court•
Oconee Superior Court•
Cobb, Fulton & Gwinnett: State & Superior Co
Figure 3 Tort Filings per 100,000 Population .(Source : Tables 2A-C) .
D.
Conclusions
Whether viewed in terms of absolute number of filings, as a percentage of total civil
filings or adjusted for population, the pattern of tort filings in Georgia has not changed much
during the 1990's . Modest growth in the aggregate number of tort filings is more than offset by
increases in population, and tort claims as a percentage of civil filings have remained remarkably
stable over time . Tort filings in the State Courts of Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties vastly
outnumber those filed in the corresponding Superior Courts . Filing rates per 100,000 population
in metropolitan Atlanta are much higher than previously estimated when State Court filings are
considered. But the inclusion of State Court data does not alter the general picture . Adjusted for
population, the rate of filing tort claims in the aggregate actually declined slightly between 1993
and 1997 . This pattern was not uniform, however . Filing rates adjusted for population declined
in Fulton County but increased in Cobb and Gwinnett counties . These changes suggest a shift in
the location of tort litigation in metropolitan Atlanta .
N.
Characteristics of Tort Claims Filed in Georgia Courts
The term "tort" covers a wide variety of claims . In this part of our Report, we identify the
characteristics of tort claims filed in Georgia courts . We first describe the type of claims filed .
We then look at rough indicators of complexity, such as the number and type of parties and
number of attorneys . The dominant pattern reflected in the filings is one of relatively simple
cases .
1 6
A.
Type of Claims
High states products liability and medical malpractice suits receive more media and
academic attention, but the every day world of tort litigation is dominated by the automobile
accident .`' We found this to be true in our 1996 study and it remains true today . The
percentages of various types of tort claims in Superior Courts, State Courts, and the combined
Superior and State Courts are reported in Tables 3A-3C .
Suits pertaining to automobile accidents
accounted for 55 .8% of all tort claims filed in the six
Superior Courts included in our study between 1994
and 1997 . Table 3A . The next largest categories of
claims were premises liability (14%), intentional
torts (10.9%), professional malpractice (6.4%), and
products liability (3.4%). See Figure 4A .
Automobile accidents account for an even
greater percentage of tort filings in State Courts .
Auto claims made up 71 .9% of State Court tort filings in our study . Table 3B . As we found in
Superior Court, the next greatest number of tort claims involved premises liability (9 .2%),
intentional torts (8 .6%), professional malpractice (2 .8%) and products liability (2.4%)
1 7
Automobile• lntrntiorW•
Products Liability
55 .9%
146.4%
10.9%
0%
3~
9.5%
•
Prcmom Lability•
Professional Malpractice•
oteT
Figure 4A Type of Claim : AggregateSuperior Court Filings 1994-1997 . (Source :Table 3A) .
21 See, e .g ., Deborah R. Hensler, Trends in Tort Litigation : Findings from the Institute forCivil Justice's Research, 48 Ohio St . L . J. 479, 494 (1987) [hereinafter cited as Hensler] ; Smith,supra note 6, at 2 (auto claims were 60% of all tort claims) . Cf. DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 2(automobile accident claims comprise the largest percentage of tort claims disposed by trial) ;Moller, supra note 6, at 11-12 (automobile claims accounted for largest percentage of tort juryverdicts in each of the jurisdictions studied) .
- 5 .1%
2.4%
2.8%
8.6%
9 .2 o
Automobile
Premises Liability•
Intentional • Professional Malpractice•
Products Liability Other
Figure 4B Type of Claim : State Court Filings 1994-1997 . (Source : Table 3B) .
Figure 4C Type of Claim : Combined State andSuperior Court Filings in Cobb, Fulton and GwinnettCounties 1995-97 . (Source : Table 3C) .
respectively . See Figure 4B .
The combined Superior and State Court
data reflect the following relative ranking of
claim types : automobile (67%) 22 , premises
liability (10.6%), intentional torts (9 .7%),
professional malpractice (3.8%), and products
liability (2 .8%) . See Figure 4C .
As to be expected, the type of tort claims
varied by jurisdiction . Automobile accidents
account for a higher percentage of tort claims
filed in more rural areas than in the courts of
urban counties . More than 80% of all tort
claims filed in Irwin and Oconee counties over a
four year period involved automobile accidents .
Table 3A . The corresponding figures in Bibb
(52 .6%) 23 and Fulton (62 .2%) counties were
much lower. Tables 3A and 3C . There are also
`'`This figure probably would have been higher had we collected Fulton County StateCourt data from 1994. The percentage of auto cases in Fulton County State Court wasconsistently higher than in Superior Court (Compare Table 3A and 3B), and there are greaternumber of tort cases filed in State Court as compared to Superior Court . Table 1 D .
23The percentage of automobile claims in Bibb County might well have been higher hadwe access to State Court filings . Such claims were found in greater numbers in Fulton CountyState Court as compared to Superior Court . Compare Table 3A and 3B. The generalization thatautomobile accidents are more dominant in rural areas would likely remain true, however .
1 8
67.0%
6.1%
°2.8%3.8%
I0 .6, ; 11
Automobile Premises Liability
Intentional • Professional Malpractice
Products Liability U Other
certain types of claims that are filed with much greater frequency in some jurisdictions as
compared to others. For examples, tort claims brought by railroad employees against their
employers under the Federal Employers' Liability Act24 (FELA) accounted for 8 .8% of all tort
claims filed in Gwinnett State and Superior Courts and 3 .5% of tort suits filed in Bibb County
Superior Court. Tables 3A and 3C. Such claims were rarely, and sometimes never, filed in the
courts of the other four counties . Table 3A and 3C .
A pattern of claim types dominated by automobile accidents followed by premises
liability, professional malpractice and products liability has been reported in other studies ." It is
also the same relative mix of cases we reported in our previous study .26 In this Report we listed
intentional torts and FELA as separate categories of claim types . In our previous study, we
included those claim types under a generic heading of "Other" .27 We decided to report them
separately in this study because FELA cases appear to constitute an important component of the
tort docket in some jurisdictions and, frankly, because we were surprised to find as many
intentional tort claims as we did . 2S On the whole, however, the mix of claim types found in
2445 U.S .C. A. § 51 et. seq . .
25See, e.g ., Smith et. al ., supra note 6, at 2 . Cf. DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 2(automobile accident cases constitute the largest number of trials in tort cases, followed bypremises liability, medical malpractice, intentional torts, other negligence and products liability) ;Moller, supra note 6, at 11 (the greatest number of verdicts in tort cases are in automobile casesfollowed by premises liability, medical malpractice and products liability claims) .
26Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 649-51 .
27Id ., at 703, Table 8A .
"The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for State Courts found thatintentional torts accounted for only 2 .9% of the tort filings in its sampling of state courts ofgeneral jurisdiction in the nation's 75 largest counties . Smith et. al ., supra note 6, at 2 .
1 9
Georgia courts has been and continues to be consistent with that reported in other states and
reflects a tort docket overwhelmingly dominated by automobile accident cases .
B.
Indicators of Complexity
One indicator of complexity is the type of claim. As discussed above, automobile
accidents dominate the Georgia tort docket. Tort suits stemming from automobile accidents are
commonly characterized as "simple" claims . 29 Such claims are governed by substantive law that
is doctrinally stable, are subject to routine processing, and generally involve modest injuries that
occur under commonplace circumstances . 30 For these reasons, automobile accident suits are
considered most amenable to alternative dispute resolution ."
Other indicators also suggest that the overwhelming majority of tort claims filed in
Georgia courts involve relatively simple disputes . Individuals were the named plaintiff in 97 .1%
of all tort claims filed in Superior Court (Table 4A) and in 80 .7% of tort claims filed in State
Court. Table 4B. Insurance companies filed 16 .7% of the tort suits in State Court, presumably
asserting rights of subrogation . Table 4B . Individuals were also the named defendant in 72 .5%
of the Superior Court and in 78 .6% of the State Court filings . Tables 4A and 4B . Thus, most
tort claims involve disputes between individuals .
By far the most common pattern involved a single plaintiff suing a single defendant . A
29Hensler, supra note 21, at 494-95 .
301d . .
311d . .
20
single plaintiff was named in more than 76% of the Superior Court and 77% of the State Court
filings. Tables 4C and 4D. Single defendants were named in 55 .8% of the Superior Court and
64.6% of the State Court tort filings . Tables 4C and 4D . More than 97% of the Superior Court
and almost 95% of the State Court tort cases involved no more than two plaintiffs . Tables 4C
and 4D. In Superior Courts, two or fewer defendants were named in more than 83% of the
complaints and more than 95% of cases named no more than four defendants . Table 4C. The
corresponding figures for State Court filings were 88 .2% and 97 .5%, respectively. Table 4D .
In more than 90% of the Superior Court and 81 % of the State Court tort cases, the
plaintiffs were represented by no more than a single attorney . Tables 5A and 5B . The plaintiff
was represented by no more than two attorneys in more than 95% of all tort cases filed . Tables
5A and 5B. Defendants were represented by no more than one attorney in more than 77% of the
Superior Court and 64% of State Court tort cases . Tables 5A and 5B . Fewer than 6% of the
cases involved three or more defense attorneys . Tables 5A and 5B .
While claim type, the number and type of litigants, and the number of attorneys are only
rough measures of case complexity, 32 they point to a consistent overall impression of simplicity .
By far the most common tort case had an individual plaintiff suing an individual defendant over
an automobile accident with each party represented by one attorney . More factually and legally
complex cases involving multiple parties and attorneys were comparatively rare .
V .
Disposition Patterns
"For a recent article describing the difficulty in defining "complexity" and arguing thatcourts are competent to handle "complex" disputes, see Jeffery W. Stampel, A More CompleteLook at Complexity, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 781 (1998)-
2 1
Our discussion of disposition patterns will focus on methods of disposition and
percentages of cases disposed within one and two years of filing . Our data base here consists of
cases that were filed and disposed within the time period studied . Thus, it does not included
cases that were pending at the time we collected the data ." Of the 20,726 tort cases filed and
disposed between 1994 and 1997, 6,273 were Superior Court and 14,453 were State Court cases .
Tables 6A and 6C . Consistent with the findings in our previous study, the pattern remains one in
which settlement is the norm and a trial of any sort is very much the exception .
A.
Trials
Our previous study reported that less than 7% of cases were disposed by bench or jury
trial . 34 We found an even smaller percentage of trials in this study. Trials of any sort were used
in less than 5% of tort cases disposed in State and Superior Courts . Tables 6A and 6C . Jury
trials resolved 4 .3% of the cases disposed in Superior Courts and 3 .6% of State Court cases .
Tables 6A and 6C . Bench trials disposed 0.5% of the Superior Court cases and 1 .2% of State
Court cases. Tables 6A and 6C .
There were some interesting variations among and within jurisdictions . Jury trials
resolved a much greater percentage of Superior Court claims in Gwinnett (8 .6%) than in Cobb
"Most of the data were collected during the summer of 1998 . Some data were collectedduring the summer of 1999 . Most of the cases coded "pending" were filed in 1997 . We checkedcases coded as pending to see if there were any obvious differences between these cases andthose that had been disposed . We found that pending and disposed cases were quite similar interms of types of claims, number of litigants and number of attorneys .
34Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 655 .
22
county (1 .9%) . Table 6A. The differences were much smaller in State Courts, where jury trials
accounted for 5 .7% of dispositions in Gwinnett and 3 .7% in Cobb counties . Table 6C .
A higher percentage of automobile accident cases were resolved by trials than other types
of tort claims . Jury trials disposed 5.2% of the automobile accident cases filed in Superior
Courts and 4 .3% of the State Court automobile accident cases . Tables 6B and 6D . By way of
comparison, jury trials were used to dispose of 3 .1 % and 2.8% of the professional malpractice
cases in Superior and State Courts, respectively . Tables 6B and 6D .
B .
Settlements
There is no formal designation of "settlements" on court docket sheets . We assumed that
all consent decrees, consent judgments and voluntary dismissals with prejudice reflected a
settlement of some sort . With that assumption, we found that 54 .5% of Superior Court and
51 .2% of State Court cases were disposed by settlement . Tables 6A and 6C .
These percentages are lower than prior studies have reported. We found that 64 .6% of
the tort cases filed and disposed in four Georgia Superior Courts between 1990 and 1993 were
settled." None of the Superior Courts included in this study reached that figure . Table 6A. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 73 .4% of tort cases settled based on their sampling of
cases from large urban jurisdictions, including Fulton County, that were disposed in FY 1992 . 36
Methodological differences might explain some of the differences between the BJS estimate and
"Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 658-59 .
36Smith, supra note 6, at 3 .
23
our calculations . 37 Methodology does not explain the almost 10% decline in the percentage of
cases disposed by settlement in our two studies .
In both Superior and State Courts, automobile accident claims were more likely to settle
than other types of tort cases . Settlements accounted for 61 .3% of dispositions of automobile
cases in Superior Court and 53 .2% in State Court . Tables 6B and 6D . Less than 35% of libel
and slander cases were settled. Tables 6B and 6D .
C . Other Methods of Disposition
If the percentage of cases disposed by trial and settlement has declined, then the
percentage of dispositions by other methods must have increased . One disposition type that has
increased is "Dismissals" . There are a variety of grounds for dismissal included under this
heading, but the largest sub-category is "voluntary dismissal without prejudice" . 38 In our prior
study, "dismissals", including voluntary dismissals without prejudice, accounted for 17 .7% of
the aggregate dispositions ." Our current data reflect that 26 .4% of Superior Court and 26 .8% of
State Court dispositions were dismissals, the vast majority of which were voluntary dismissals
without prejudice. Tables 6A and 6C . This group of cases is important since a case dismissed
37The BJS estimate is based on a sampling of cases from a pool of tort cases disposed infiscal year 1992 . The calculations in both our current and prior study are based on a review of allcases filed and disposed within the calender year time period of the study .
"For example, we found that 26 .4% of the Superior Court and 26 .8% of State Courtdispositions were dismissals . Tables 6A and 6C. The percentages of voluntary dismissalswithout prejudice were 19.1 % and 20.5%, respectively .
39Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 710, Table 12A .
24
without prejudice may be refiled within six months of the dismissa14 0 For this group of cases,
we have no way determining whether the underlying dispute was resolved, or whether the case
was refiled . In any event, this type of disposition accounted for a greater percentage of total
dispositions in our current study than it had in the past .
The second method of disposition that increased in our current study is "Transfers ."
Transfers accounted for only 2 .9% of all dispositions in our first study '41 but 7.1% of all Superior
Court and 5 .8% of State Court dispositions in our current study. Tables 6A and 6C . Transfers
occurred with greatest frequency in Fulton County, where they accounted for 10 .2% and 8.5% of
dispositions in Superior and State Courts, respectively. Tables 6A and 6C. The comparatively
higher percentage of transfers out of Fulton County may reflect unsuccessful efforts by plaintiffs
to find a presumably plaintiff-friendly Fulton County venue . As is the case with voluntary
dismissals without prejudice, a transfer is a "disposition" that often does not reflect the
termination of the underlying dispute . The dispute is simply moved to another court for
resolution .
A complete picture of method of disposition in Superior and State Courts is reflected in
Figures 5A-B below .
400.C .G.A. § 9-2-61 (1999) (allowing cases that are dismissed without prejudice to berefiled within six months subject to applicable statute of limitations) .
41Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 710, Table 12A .
25
2b49o
54.5%
0.7%0.03%0.5%4.3%
1 .5%1 .5%
3.4%7.1%
Settlements
• Dismissals•
Transfers • Summary Judgments•
Default Judgments U Arbitration•
Jury U Bench•
Diected Verdict • Missing
Figure 5A Type of Disposition : Superior Courts1994-1997 . (Source: Table 6A) .
51 .2%
1 .1%0.01%1.2%3.6%
20 . i
0.3%7.8%
2.4%
Figure 5B Type of Disposition : State Courts 1994-1997. (Source : Table 6C) .
D .
Percentages of Tort Cases Disposed Within One and Two Years of Filing
The time it takes to resolve a dispute is an important indicator of how well the civil
justice system is working . Our data indicates that Georgia courts are faring better than courts in
most states in disposing tort cases in a timely fashion, but there is room for improvement .
A common measure of case processing time is the percentage of cases disposed within
one and two years of filing ." The American Bar Association has established target goals for
courts . It suggests that 90% of civil cases should be disposed within one year of filing and 98%
"E .g ., Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 660 ; Smith, supra note 6, at 3 . Anothercommon measure is the average and median time to dispose a case . The most recent BJS studyincludes such information on tort cases that were tried in FY 1996 in large counties across thecountry. DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 13 . Methodological differences preclude comparing theirdata and ours. The BJS data were taken exclusively from tort cases that were tried in FY 1996 .Our data were taken from all cases filed in the calender years 1994-97 . By using only cases thatwere tried regardless of when they were filed, the BJS study would likely capture cases that hadbeen in the system for a relatively long period of time . Our data set, on the other hand, includesonly cases that had been filed between 1994 and 1997 . These differences in the data sets createsan "apples and oranges" problem in comparing median and average disposition figures .
26
5.8%
Settlements U DismissalsTransfers U Summary JudgmentsDefault Judgments U Arbitrationfury BenchDiected Verdict U Missing
should be disposed within two years . 43 While no state comes close to meeting this ideal, Georgia
courts appear to be above the national average . A previous BJS study reported that the average
percentage of tort cases disposed within one and two years by state courts in 45 jurisdictions was
44% and 74%, respectively .' The same study reported the percentages for Fulton County
Superior Court to be 58% and 87% . 45 Our prior study found that 64% of the tort cases filed in
four Superior Courts in 1991 and 1992 were disposed in one year and 89 .9% were disposed
within two years of filing . 46
The data from this study indicates that Georgia courts still dispose of a higher percentage
of tort cases within one and two years than the national averages reported by BJS, but the
percentages are lower than we found in our previous study . An average of 55.5% of the tort
cases filed in the six Superior Courts in 1994-96 were disposed within one year of filing . 41
Table 7A. An average of 83 .5% of the tort cases filed in these Superior Courts in 1994-95 were
disposed within two years of filing Table 7A. The corresponding percentages for State Courts
with their much greater number of cases were slightly lower--51 .4% of tort cases disposed within
43American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Trial Courts § 2.5 (ABA 1987) .
44Smith, supra note 6, at 3 .
45Id., at 8 .
46Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 660 .
47Since we have four years' of data from all of the Superior Courts included in our study,we were able to calculate the percentage of tort cases disposed within one year of filing for theyears 1994-96 . Our calculation of the percentage of tort cases disposed within two years of filingin Superior courts is limited to 1994-95 .
27
one year and 78.3% disposed within two years ." Table 7B_
There were variations among jurisdictions. Both the Gwinnett State and Superior Courts
disposed of a higher percentage of tort cases within one and two years of filing than their
counterparts in Fulton and Cobb . Table 7C. Of all the tort cases filed in Gwinnett State and
Superior Courts in 1995, a remarkable 92 .3% were disposed within two years of filing. The
apparent" comparative efficiency of the Gwinnett Superior and State Courts in processing tort
cases merits further study .
VI.
Trial Outcomes
Trial outcomes are an important part of the political and policy debates regarding civil
justice reform . 50 In ,this Part we report on the outcomes of more than 800 bench and jury trials in
tort cases that took place between 1994 and 1997 . We will first describe the universe of trials for
which we have outcome information . We will then report the success rates of plaintiffs and
defendants . A plaintiff was considered to have "prevailed" if a verdict in any amount was
48As we did not collect data on tort cases filed in Fulton County in 1994, our percentagesfor that year are based on Cobb and Gwinnett State Courts alone . The 1995 data used calculatepercentages of cases disposed within one and two years includes cases filed in Fulton CountyState Court .
49We say "apparent" because we are reluctant to draw too firm a conclusion based on onlytwo years of data .
'TFor a brief discussion of how the comparatively small number of jury verdicts influencethe settlement of a much larger number of claims, see Moller, supra note 6, at 1-4 .
28
returned in his or her favor ." A defendant was considered to have prevailed if the judge or jury
ruled for the defense. A small number of cases reflected "mixed" results where both the plaintiff
and defendant secured some relief . Our discussion of success rates will identify differences in
outcomes of bench and jury trials, trials conducted in State or Superior Courts, and differences
among and within certain locations .
A.
Data Set of Cases In Which Outcomes Could Be Determined
There were 984 bench and jury trials in the cases we studied . Unfortunately, the
outcomes 155 of these trials was either not clearly reflected in the court records, or the records
were not available for review . 52 Tables 8A, 8C, 9A and 9C . Our calculations of success rates is
based on the 829 trials (688 jury and 141 bench trials) for which we can determine an outcome .
Of the 688 are jury trials included in our data set, 239 took place in Superior Courts and 449 in
State Courts . Tables 8A and 8C. We also have outcome information on 22 Superior Court and
119 State Court bench trials . Tables 9A and 9C .
51Thus, a plaintiff would be considered to have prevailed if the court entered a judgmentof $1 in nominal damages . Cf. Farrar v . Hobby, 506 U . S . 103 (1992). We did not have access toinformation regarding settlement demands and offers or litigation costs which would allow for amore subtle measure of "success"_ For an interesting study that employs this more sophisticatedmeasure of success, see Gross & Syverud, supra note 6 . Gross and Syverud suggest thatplaintiffs' success rate is lower when costs and settlement demands and offers are considered .Id, . at 40-45 .
52Outcomes were not identified in 30 Superior Court jury trials (Table 8A), 66 State Courtjury trials (Table 8C), 8 Superior court bench trials (Table 9A) and 51 State Court bench trials(Table 9C) .
29
5a6
3 .8%
45 .6%
•
Plaintiff
Defendant•
Mixed
Figure 6A Jury Trial Outcomes :Superior Courts 1994-1997 .(Source : Table 8A) .
56 .6%
W 0.2%
43 .2%
Plaintiff• Defendant•
Mixed or Mistrial
Figure 6B Jury Trial Outcomes :State Courts 1994-1997 . (Source :Table 8C) .
B .
Trial Outcomes for "All Torts"
Plaintiffs prevailed in more than half of the tort jury
trials in both Superior and State Courts . Plaintiffs enjoyed an
overall success rate of 50 .6% in Superior Court and 56 .6% in
State Court jury trials . 5' Defendants prevailed in 45 .6% of
Superior Court and 43 .2% of State Court jury trials . Results
were mixed in 3 .8% and .2% of Superior and State Court jury
trials respectively . Tables 8A and 8C . See Figures 6A-B .
These success rates are consistent with those reported in other
studies, including our own . 54
Plaintiffs enjoyed a higher success rate in bench trials in
both Superior and State Courts . Plaintiffs prevailed in 72 .7% of
Superior and 81 .5% of State bench trials . There were no "mixed" results in bench trials . Tables
"The plaintiffs' comparatively higher rate of success in State Court jury trials may reflectthe correspondingly higher percentage of automobile accident cases filed in State Courts . Table3A . Other studies indicate that plaintiffs tend to prevail in a higher percentage of trials involvingautomobile accidents than in trials involving other types of tort claims . DeFrances II, supra note6, at 6 (plaintiffs prevail in 57 .5% of jury trials in automobile accident cases); DeFrances I,supra note 6, at 4 (plaintiffs prevail in 60 .2% of jury trials of automobile accident cases in statecourts); Litras & DeFrances, supra note 6, at 5 (plaintiffs prevail in 58 .8% of automobile accidentcases tried in federal courts) ; Moller, supra note 6, at 16 (plaintiffs win approximately 66% ofautomobile personal injury trials) .
54 Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 663 (plaintiff success rate of 52%) ; DeFrances II,supra note 6, at 6 (plaintiffs prevail in 48 .2% of tort jury trials) ; DeFrances I, supra note 6, at 4(in all torts, plaintiffs won 51 .8%); Moller, supra note 6, at 16 (plaintiffs overall win rate of56.5% in all torts). See generally, Merritt & Barry, supra note 6 at 386-87 (reviewing severalstudies) .
30
9A and 9C. See Figures 7A-B . These findings are again consistent with other studies, including
our own, that challenge the conventional wisdom that plaintiffs fare better when the trier of fact
is a (presumably emotional) jury than a (presumably more objective) judge . 5 '
\**ovap, 3%
•
Plaintiff•
Defendant
Figure 7A Bench Trial Outcomes :Superior Courts 1994-1997 .(Source : Table 9A) .
70.0%
60.0% -
50.0% -
40.0% -
30.0% -
20.0% -
10.0% -
0.0% /
VI
T -
Bibb
Cobb Fulton Gwinnett
Plaintiff Win Percentage
Figure 8 Outcome Variations in Superior Court JuryTrials . (Source: Table 8A) .
3 1
81 .5
•
Plaintiff•
Defendant
Figure 7B Bench Trial Outcomes :State Courts 1994-1997 . (Source :Table 9C) .
C.
Variations in Trial Outcomes By
Jurisdictions
As depicted in Figure 8, the data reflect
some interesting variations among and within
certain locations . The plaintiffs success rate in
jury trials in Fulton (48 .2%) and Bibb (45 .8%)
Superior Courts were slightly less than the
"Eaton & Talarico, supra note 1, at 664 ; DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 6 (plaintiffs'success rate is greater in bench trials for every type of tort claims) ; Kevin M. Clermont &Theodore Eisenberg, Trial By Jury or Judge : Transcending Empiricism, 77 Cornell L . Rev. 1 124(1992) .
aggregate average (50 .6%). Table 8A . These data suggest that contrary to the conventional
wisdom, Fulton County juries are not necessarily the most likely to find for plaintiffs .
Success rates in Superior Court jury trials vary considerably between Cobb and Gwinnett
counties. Plaintiffs prevailed in 61 .4% of Gwinnett County Superior Court jury trials, but
prevailed in only 12 .5% of Cobb County Superior Court jury trials . Mixed verdicts were
returned by Cobb County Superior Court juries in an additional 12 .5% of the cases . Table 8A .
The combined mixed and plaintiff prevailing verdicts indicates that plaintiffs received some
relief in only 25% of the Cobb County Superior Court jury trials, far less often than the
percentage of plaintiff victories in Gwinnett County . This dramatic difference in success rates is
most interesting given the demographic similarities of Cobb and Gwinnett counties . s6
Success rates in State Court jury trials do not vary as much by county . Table 8C. Juries
returned verdicts for plaintiffs in both Cobb (55%) and Gwinnett (56 .4%) State Courts about as
often as the aggregate average (56 .6%). Table 8C. Fulton County plaintiffs prevailed more
frequently in State Court (57 .8%) than in its Superior Courts (48 .2%). Tables 8A and 8C . An
even more dramatic variation in success rates exists between Cobb County State and Superior
Courts. Plaintiffs in Cobb County prevailed in 55% State Court tort jury trials, but only in 12.5%
56Cobb and Gwinnett counties are large, affluent suburban counties adjoining the City ofAtlanta. According to the Georgia Statistical Abstract 1998-99, supra note 6, these two countiesare similar in size (at pages 6-7 : 1997 estimated population in Cobb County was 551,059 ;Gwinnett County-500,818), enjoy a higher than state average median family income (at pages155-56: the state median family income in 1989 was $35,529 ; the corresponding figures were$48,415 in Cobb County and $48,000 in Gwinnett County ; and lower than state averageunemployment (at pages 97-100 : the estimated state rate of unemployment was 4 .5% ; thecorresponding figures were 3 .0% in Cobb County and 2 .6% in Gwinnett County .
32
Superior Court jury trials . Tables 8A and 8C .
Some of these differences are reflected in
Figure 9 .
D.
Variations in Trial Outcomes By
Type of Claim
Figure 9 Outcomes in Jury Trials : Comparison ofNot surprisingly, the plaintiff prevailed in State and Superior Courts . (Sources: Tables 8A&C) .
a higher percentage of jury trials in automobile
accident cases than in most other types of tort claims . In cases involving automobile accidents,
the plaintiff secured a verdict in 54 .8% of jury trials in Superior Court and in 58 .6% of State
court jury trials. Tables 8B and 8D . The plaintiffs success rate was even higher when such
claims were tried to Superior Court (77 .8%) and State Court (85 .9%) judges . Tables 9B and 9D .
In no other major category of tort claim did the plaintiffs success rate injury trials
exceed 50%. The plaintiff prevailed in 50% of Superior and State Court jury trials of products
liability claims and 47 .1% of premises liability jury trials . Table 8E . The plaintiff won only
l5% of the jury trials in medical malpractice cases in those courts . Table 8E .
Our data regarding trial outcomes are largely consistent with national data . In the most
recent BJS study, plaintiffs were found to prevail most often in jury trials involving automobile
accidents (57.5%), followed by premise liability (39 .6%), products liability (37 .2%) and medical
70 .0%
60.0%-
50.0%-
40.0% -
30.0% -
20.0% -
10.0% -
0 .0%Cobb Fulton
Gwinnett
•
Superior Court Plaintiff Win Percentage•
State Court Plaintiff Win Percentage
3 3
malpractice (23_4%) . 57 These findings, in turn, replicate those of an earlier BJS study .58
The patterns of outcomes found in our study and the two BJS national studies reflect a
jury system that appears to be more rational than many of its critics suggest . One would expect a
rational jury to find for the plaintiff more frequently in trials of automobile accident claims than
in products liability or medical malpractice cases . The evidence needed to establish the
defendant's negligence in an auto accident generally is neither complex nor difficult to obtain .
Moreover, the demise of the guest rule and the adoption of comparative fault enhance the
plaintiffs chances of securing at least a partial recovery . On the other hand, the evidence needed
to prove professional negligence or product defect is complex, difficult to obtain, and expensive_
The empirical data simply do not support the proposition that juries routinely return verdicts for
the plaintiff against health care providers and product manufacturers . In the most complex and
high stakes tort cases, juries return verdicts for the defendant more frequently than they do for
the plaintiff.
VII . Damage Awards
We have information on 449 trials in which the plaintiff was awarded compensatory
57DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 6. The success rate cited for products liability jury trials isfor all products other than asbestos and breast implants . The plaintiffs success rate for these twoclasses of products were 55_6% and 34 .2%, respectively. Id_
S8In its study of jury trials of tort cases in large counties during FY 1992, BJS reported theplaintiffs success rate in jury trials involving various types of tort claims as follows : automobileaccident cases (60.2%), premises liability (43 .7%), products liability (40 .5%) and medicalmalpractice (30.3%) . DeFrances I, supra note 6, at 4 .
34
damages. Three hundred forty-one of these awards came in jury trials (106 Superior Court ; 235
State Court) and 108 in bench trials (14 Superior Court ; 94 State Court). Tables 10A and IOC .
We will first discuss compensatory damage awards and then punitive damages . As discussed in
more detail below, compensatory damage awards tend to be modest in size and punitive damages
are rarely awarded .
A .
Compensatory Damages
1 .
Compensatory Damages Generally
Our data reflect an overall pattern where modest compensatory damages are the norm and
large awards are the rare exception . We will demonstrate this point by first discussing damage
awards in bench and jury trials for all tort claims in the aggregate . We will then describe
differences in awards by type of claim .
We found little evidence of runaway juries . Verdicts of one million dollars or more were
exceedingly rare . Of the 341 jury trials for which we had information regarding compensatory
damages, there were only 3 awards of $1 million or more . Tables 1OA and IOC . The largest jury
award was $14.9 in a medical malpractice case tried before a Fulton County State Court jury .
The plaintiff in that case suffered permanent brain damage and was left in a persistent vegetative
state as a result of stipulated negligence . 59 This one compensatory damage award was more than
eight times as large as the next largest award. Tables 10A and 10C .
35
59Brown v. Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority, 96-VS-01 18515 J (the case was settledafter the verdict and no appeal was taken) .
The median and the mean damage awards reflect more moderation .60 The median verdict
in State and Superior Court jury trials were $7,859 and $5,650, respectively . Table 1OA. The
mean award in these courts were $54,298 and $101,449, respectively. Table 1OA. The
distribution of damage awards in tort jury trials is summarized in Figure 10 .
Superior Court
State Court
Range
$1 - $1,750,000
$51 - $14,915,670
Mean
$54,298
$101,499
Median
$7,859
$5,650
Figure 10 Summary of Compensatory Damage Awards in Jury Trials_(Source: Table l0A).
Aside from a single award of $3 million by a Fulton County Superior Court judge in a
libel case, damages awarded to prevailing plaintiffs in bench trials were also modest_ The
median award in Superior and State Court bench trials were $17,606 and $5,600, respectively .
Table IOC . The mean award in these courts were $247,453 and $11,814, respectively . Table
IOC. The distribution of damage awards in bench trials is summarized in Figure 11 .
Superior Court State Court
Range $500 - $3,000,000 $409 - $127,246
Mean $247,453 $11,814
Median
$17,606
$5,600
Figure 11 Summary of Compensatory Damage Awards in BenchTrials . (Source : Table IOC)_
60Statistical reports of damage awards frequently refer to the mean and median award .The mean is the statistical average and the median is the midpoint, or 50th percentile, ofdistribution. For a discussion of the use of statistical means and medians injury verdict research,see Michael J. Saks, Do We Really Know Anything About the Behavior of the Tort LitigationSystem-And Why Not?, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1147,1249-50 (1992) .
36
These data prompt three observations . First, while the large verdict occasionally occurs,
it is very much the exception . There were only 3 jury and 1 bench compensatory damage awards
of $1 million or more out of a total of 829 trials for which we have determined an outcome .
Thus, we found that a million dollar award in less than 'h of 1 % of all tort trials for which we
have a determined outcome, and in less than 1% of all tort trials in which the plaintiff prevailed .
Second, there is a marked difference between the mean and median award . The mean is
always higher than the median because of the occasional large award . A single high award in an
otherwise unchanging distribution will pull the mean higher without affecting the median . 61
This point is most dramatically illustrated in our data where a single large verdict creates a
difference of more than $95,000 between the mean and median State Court jury damage award .
See Figure 10 . While both the mean and the median are valid statistical measures, the median is
commonly employed as a barometer of typical jury behavior . The most recent BJS study, for
example, reports median awards as the indicator of typical outcomes injury trials in which the
plaintiff prevails . 62
Third, the median compensatory damage award in Georgia courts appears to be lower
than found in other jurisdictions . The most recent BJS study reports a median award of $31,000
in their national pool of tort trials in the country's largest state courts . 63 The median awards we
611d
62DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 7 .
631d .
37
found in both bench and jury trials were much lower . The median awards in Superior and State
Court jury trials were $7,859 and $5,650, respectively. Table IOA. The corresponding medians
for bench trials were $17,606 and $5,600. Table 1 OC. To put this in context, in half of the jury
trials in which the plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages, the award was less than $6,000 .
Table 1OA .
2 .
Variations in Compensatory Damage Awards By Type of Claim
The size of damage awards varies by type of claim . The median awards in both Superior
and State Court jury trials of automobile accident cases were lower than those awarded in
premises liability cases . In Superior Courts, the median jury award to a prevailing plaintiff in an
automobile case was $6,905, while the median in a premises liability claim was $54,916 . Table
IOB . In State Courts, the median awards in such cases were $5,145 and $23,446, respectively .
Table IOB . Although there were not enough damage awards to plaintiffs in products liability (4)
and medical malpractice (3) trials to calculate a meaningful median, it appears that the largest
awards are made in these types of cases . Table lOB. A general pattern of lower median awards
in automobile accident cases followed by higher awards in premises liability claims and the
highest awards in products liability and medical malpractice cases is also found in the national
data.
The size of median awards in Georgia tort jury trials appears to be less than the national
norm for the same type of claim. The median compensatory damage award in Superior Court
6'DeFrances I, supra note 6, at 5 (median awards : auto ($29,000), premises liability($57,000), medical malpractice ($201,000) and products liability ($260,000)) ; DeFrances II,supra note 6, at 7 (median awards : auto ($18,000), premises liability ($57,000), medicalmalpractice ($286,000), and products liability other than asbestos and breast implants($176,000)) .
38
jury trials of automobile claims was $6,905 . Table I OB . In State Courts, the median award in
such cases was $5,145 . Table I OB. The two BJS studies reported median verdicts in automobile
case of $29,000 for cases tried in FY 1992 and $18,000 for cases tried in FY 1996 . 65 Thus, the
national medians for automobile accident awards are several times larger than we found in
Georgia .
The median awards in Georgia Superior and State Court jury trials of premises liability
claims are also lower than those found in the national data . The median jury award in a Superior
Court premises liability case is $54,916 . Table IOB . The corresponding figure in State Court is
$23,446 . Table IOB . BJS twice has found the national median in such cases to be $57,000. 66
We cannot make meaningful comparisons between the BJS studies and our data regarding
median awards in products liability and
medical malpractice cases since we have so
few awards in our data set . However, the fact
that the number of plaintiff victories in such
cases is so low is itself some indication that
runaway juries are not a problem . For a
comparison of the median awards in Georgia
and the national data, see Figure 12 .
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
National
Georgia Superior
Georgia State
Figure 12 Comparison of National and Georgia MedianTort Awards in Jury Trials . (Sources : Tables IOA&B ;DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 8) .
65DeFrances I, supra note 6, at 5 ($29,000 median award in auto cases) ; DeFrances II,supra note 6, at 7 (median of $18,000 in auto cases) .
66DeFrances 1, supra note 6, at 5 ; DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 7 .
3 9
B .
Punitive Damages
With regard to punitive damages, the chasm between asking and getting is vast . Punitive
damages were sought in 3,763 of the tort claims filed in the State and Superior Courts we
examined, but were awarded in only 15 cases . Tables 11A and 1113 . Punitive damages were
awarded in 8 jury and 7 bench trials . Tables 11A and 1113 . Judges awarded punitive damages
more frequently than did juries in both Superior and State Courts . Punitive damage awards were
made in 6.7% of Superior Court bench trials, but in only 2 .2% of the Superior Court jury trials .
Table 11A. The corresponding figures in State Court were 3% and .4%, respectively . Table
1113 .
The amount of punitive damages awarded was quite modest in the few cases in which
such an award was made . The size of the award ranged from $100 to $750,000 . Only three of
the fifteen punitive damage awards exceeded $55,000 . Two of the three highest awards were
rendered in bench trials .
These data indicate that punitive damages currently are not a significant factor in personal
injury litigation in Georgia . 67 As has been suggested by others, punitive damages may play a
67Perhaps this is due to the limits placed on the amount of punitive damages by O .C.G.A .§ 51-12-5.1 (limiting the amount of punitive damages in most cases to $250,000) .
40
more prominent role in commercial disputes . 68
VIII . Conclusions : Another Brick in the Wall
A.
There Is No Evidence of a "Tort Crisis" in Georgia
There are a number of conclusions supported by these data . First, there is no evidence
that there was or is an explosion in the number of tort claims filed in Georgia courts . The slight
increase in the absolute number of tort claims filed is substantially outpaced by population
growth during the same period of time . Over the entire eight year period covered by our two
studies, tort claims have accounted for less than 10% of the total civil filings . The addition of
State Court filings greatly increases previous estimates of tort filings per 100,000 population in
metropolitan Atlanta . But even when State Court filings are factored in, the number and rate of
filings appear to be remarkably constant over time .
Second, a very high percentage of tort cases filed in Georgia courts appear to involve
comparatively simple disputes . Automobile accidents, the prototypical "simple" claim, account
for more than two-thirds of all tort claims filed . A majority of tort claims are brought by a single
plaintiff against a single defendant each of whom is represented by a single attorney. The
68For a thorough review of these studies, see Michael L . Rustad, Unraveling PunitiveDamages: Current Data and Further Inquiry, 1998 Wis . L. Rev. 15 (1998) . Professor Rustadreviewed 9 empirical studies and concluded "[e]very empirical study of punitive damagesdemonstrates that there is no nationwide punitive damage crisis . The research shows thatpunitive damages cluster in business tort and intentional tort cases, not personal injury . Theincrease in punitive damages is largely confined to a few jurisdictions ." Id., at 69-
41
complex multiparty tort case is very much the exception .
Third, formal trials dispose only a small percentage of tort cases. A majority of claims
are settled . We found the percentage of trials and settlements to be less than in our prior study,
while the percentages of transfers and voluntary dismissals without prejudice increased_ These
last two types of dispositions often do not reflect a final resolution of the underlying dispute, but
a relocation of the forum or a temporary delay in pursuing the claim .
Fourth, there does not appear to be any systematic bias in favor of plaintiffs in the civil
trial itself. Plaintiffs prevail in slightly more than half of all personal injury jury trials . The
plaintiffs' success rate is highest in simple cases such as automobile accidents and markedly
lower in complex cases such as medical malpractice. When the plaintiff does prevail,
compensatory damages tend to be quite modest and punitive damages are exceedingly rare . The
combination of data pertaining to plaintiffs' success rates, median compensatory damage awards,
and frequency and size of punitive damage awards belie the popular image of a system beset with
runaway juries . On the contrary, outcome and damage data indicate that the civil jury in personal
injury trials frequently rules for defendants, awards modest compensation to those plaintiffs who
do prevail, and rarely punishes defendants .
B .
An Emerging National Picture
The popular and political discourse of personal injury litigation and tort reform has been
42
fueled by anecdote and myth69 The engine of the tort reform movement is an image of a system
in which the number of tort claims is "exploding" and juries routinely award outrageous sums of
money for trivial injuries . Ours is another in a growing number of empirical studies that tends to
refute this image-70 Each study is another brick in a wall of information that suggests that the tort
system in practice is very different from the one depicted in popular and political rhetoric .
There is no explosion of tort filings . Throughout the county, tort claims have been and
continue to be a small percentage of civil filings ." The best available evidence indicates that
most Americans who have been injured by the negligence of others do not file a tort suit . In
other words, the pattern is one of under-claiming, not over-claiming . 72 Most claims that are filed
69For a discussion of many of these myths, see Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, CivilJuries and the Politics of Reform 5-7 (1995) ; Marc Galanter, Real World Torts : An Antidote toAnecdote, 55 Md. L. Rev. 1093 (1996) ; Michael J. Saks, Malpractice Misconceptions and OtherLessons About the Litigation System, 16 Just . Sys . J. 7 (1993) .
70For a concise discussion of recent studies, see Merritt & Barry, supra note 6, at 381-398 .
71 Smith et . al., supra note 6, at 2 (tort cases make up about 10% of civil claims filed instate courts of general jurisdiction) ; Merritt & Barry, supra note 6, at 381-82 (tort claimsconstitute only a small fraction of civil filings in Ohio courts) .
72E.g ., Paul C. Weiler et . al., A Measure of Malpractice 73 (1993) (Harvard Study ofmedical malpractice found that only 2% of persons injured by negligent medical care filed suit) ;Frank Sloan & Chee Ruey Hsieh, Injury, Liability, and the Decision to File a MedicalMalpractice Claim, 29 L. & Soc'y Rev . 413, 430 (1995) (of the 220 Florida women who sufferedan "adverse outcome" in childbirth, none filed a law suit) . See generally, Richard L. Able, TheReal Tort Crisis : Too Few Claims, 48 Ohio St . L. J. 443 (1987); Richard A. Posner, Explainingthe Variance in the Number of Tort Suits Across U .S . States and Between the United States andEngland, 26 J . Legal Stud . 477, 487-88 (1997 (concluding that after controlling for variablessuch as income, education, and urbanization, English citizens appear to file more tort suits thanAmericans) .
43
involve small stakes automobile accidents ." The high profile products liability or medical
malpractice suit do not appear in great numbers ." Settlement is the norm and trials are rare ."
Juries, the target of much criticism by proponents of tort reform, 76 appear to produce rational and
predictable results_ Plaintiffs enjoy their highest rates of success in simple cases, like automobile
accidents, where one would expect a higher success rate ; and defendants prevail more often in
legally and factually more complex cases, such as medical malpractice and products liability .77
73See note _, supra. See also, Merritt & Barry, supra note 6 at 381-82 (a majority of tortclaims filed in Franklin County (Columbus) Ohio each year are small stakes automobilenegligence claims) .
74Merritt & Barry, supra note 6, at 383 ("A county of more than one million residentsgenerated about sixty product liability claims and three hundred medical malpractice complainteach year" [over a twelve year period]) . Smith et. al., supra note 6, at 2 (medical malpractice andproducts liability claims account for 4.9% and 3.4% of tort claims in national sample of statecourts) .
75Smith et . al ., supra note 6, at 3 (73 .4% of all tort claims disposed in state courts ofgeneral jurisdiction were settled ; 2.9% by trial) ; Litras & DeFrances, supra note 6, at 1 (jury orbench trials used in only 3% of tort cases terminated in federal courts during fiscal year 1996-97) .
76E.g ., Franklin Strier, Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for Trial Reform (1994) . For areview of the most common criticisms of the jury, see Stephen Daniels & Joanne Martin, CivilJuries and the Politics of Reform (1995) . The public, by a 3 to 1 margin, is reported to believethat juries tend to award "excessive" damages . Valerie P. Hans, Attitudes Toward the Civil Jury,in Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System 248 (Robert Latin ed_, 1993) . These and otherpopular misconceptions are discussed in Michael J . Saks, Public Opinion About The Civil Jury :Can Reality Be Found In The Illusions?, 48 DePaul L . Rev. 221 (1998). Professor Saks article isone of many interesting pieces appearing in a Symposium on the Civil Jury : Illusion and Realitypublished in the Winter 1998 issue of the DePaul Law Review .
77See e.g, DeFrances II, supra note 6, at 6 (plaintiffs win 57 .3% of auto, 37 .9 % ofpremises liability, 30 .9% of products liability and 23 .4 % of medical malpractice jury trials) ;DeFrances I, supra note 6, at 4 (plaintiffs win 60 .2% of auto, 40 .5% of products liability, and30.3% of medical malpractice trials in state courts of general jurisdictions); Litras & DeFrances,supra note 6, at 5 (plaintiffs win 71 .4% of FELA, 58.8% of automobile, 34.4% of medicalmalpractice, and 29 .1 % of products liability trials in federal courts) ; Moller, supra note 6, at 16(plaintiffs win 66% of automobile, 44% of products liability, and 33% of medical malpractice
44
Modest compensatory damage awards are very much the norm' s and high awards are consistently
linked to more severe injuries . 79 Indeed, several studies suggest that juries under-compensate for
the most severe injuries . 80 A large body of empirical research now indicates that there is no
nationwide punitive damage crisis in personal injury cases . 81
These observations, of course, do not mean that all tort and civil litigation reform is
unwarranted or unwise . There maybe good reasons independent of the "litigation explosion . . .
runaway jury" myth to modify existing legal rules . The policy debate regarding proposed
changes, however, should be honest and grounded in an accurate picture of what actually
transpires in our nation's courts . We hope that our study contributes to a better understanding of
trials in selected state courts) .
78See studies discussed in Merritt & Barry, supra note 6, at 389-90 .
"For a thorough discussion of 'empirical studies of jury behavior, see Neil Vidmar, ThePerformance of the American Jury : An Empirical Perspective, 40 Ariz . L_ Rev . 849 (1998)Professor Vidmar concludes that the empirical studies tend to show that judges tend to agree withjury decisions most of the time and greatly support the jury system ; juries in medical malpracticetrials tend to render decisions consistent with independent assessments of health care providers ;judges and juries engage in the same decision making process in assessing damages for pain andsuffering; on the average, compensatory damage awards are "rather modest" ; damage awardstend to be consistent with seriousness of injury and economic losses ; and occasional "outlier"awards are systematically reduced by post-verdict processes . Id., at 898. For a discussion ofpost-verdict adjustments, see Neil Vidmar, et . al ., Jury Awards for Medical Malpractice andPost-Verdict Adjustments of Those Awards, 48 DePaul L. Rev. 265 (1998) .
"E .g ., Merritt & Barry, supra note 6, at 390 (median award for wrongful death of$312,500 "undoubtedly undervalue[s] human life") ; D. Dewees et . al., Exploring the Domain ofAccident Law 422-23 (1996) (jurors tend to under-compensate the most serious injuries) ; FrankA. Sloan & Thomas J . Hoerger, Uncertainty, Information and Resolution of Medical MalpracticeDisputes, 4 J . Risk & Uncertainty 403 (under-compensating economic injuries in medicalmalpractice claims) .
81This literature is thoroughly examined in Michael L. Rustad, Unraveling PunitiveDamages : Current Data and Further Inquiry, 1998 Wis . L. Rev_ 15 (1998)-
45
that picture .
46
Table 1AProportion of Tort Cases in General Civil Caseload - Superior Courts
1990-1997
YEAR COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
1990 8 .1%(201/2513)
a a 4.0%(256/6335)
3 .4%(9/266)
7.5%(31/415)
5 .2%(497/9,529)
1991 8 .3%(244/2936)
a a 4.0%(291/7262)
6 .8%(20/294)
4.6%(22/481)
5 .3%(577/10,973)
1992 8 .3%(268/3235)
a a 3 .3%(253/7589)
4.5%(11/245)
6.5%(31/474)
4.9%(563/11,543)
1993 7 .0%(245/3524)
a a 3 .0%(199/6830)
3 .0%(10/328)
6.0%(27/449)
4.3%(481/11,131)
1994 7 .1%(228/3230)
3 .6%(347/9586)
8 .2%(1083/13,200)
3 .1%(277/8939)
3 .0%(10/337)
4 .4%(18/412)
5.5%(1963/35,704)
1995 6 .7%(252/3736)
3 .8%(331/8611)
5 .8%(1013/17,578)
3 .7%(308/8235)
3 .8%(9/237)
6 .8%(30/439)
5.0%(1943/38,836)
1996 5 .5%(214/3877)
3 .6%(334/9400)
4.8%(941/19,507)
4.3%(359/8276)
3.9%(13/335)
7 .5%(39/519)
4.5%(1900/41,914)
1997 6 .0%(255/4256)
3 .3%(342/10,265)
8.1%(935/11,503*)
5 .0%(486/9731)
4 .3%(15/351)
7 .9%(42/530)
5.7%(2075/36,636)
Total for1994-1997
6 .3%(949/15,099)
3 .6%(1354/37,862)
6.4%(3972/61,788)
4.1%(1430/35,181)
3 .7%(47/1260)
6 .8%(129/1900)
5 .1%(7881/153,090)
a Data were not collected in first study .* Total count is not confirmed .
Table 1BProportion of Tort Cases in General Civil Caseload - State Courts
1994 - 1997
YEAR COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb State
Fulton State
Gwinnett State
1994 4 .7% a 14.6% 6 .6%(1046/22,488) (817/5600) (1863/28,088)
1995 4 .7% 8 .2% 12.6% 7 .4%(1083/23,166) (3385/41,354) (758/6013) (5226/70,533)
1996 4.6% 7 .9% 13.5% 7.4%(1100/23,769) (3224/40,789) (950/7033) (5274/71,591)
1997 5 .5% 7 .4% 10.8% 7.1%(1328/24,236) (3192/42,886) (797/7352) (5317/74,474)
Total 4.9% 7 .8% 12,8% 7.2%(4557/93,659) (9801/125,029) (3322/25,998) (17,680/244,686)
a Data were not collected .
Table 1 CProportion of Tort Cases in General Civil Caseload
Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties1995 - 1997*
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett Total
1995 4.4% 7.5% 7 .5% 6 .6%(1414/31,777) (4398/58,932) (1066/14,248) (6878/104,957)
1996 4.3% 6.9% 8 .6% 6 .3%(1434/33,169) (4165/60,296) (1309/15,309) (6908/108,774)
1997 4.8% 7.6% 7 .5% 6 .7%(1670/34,501) (4127/54,389) (1283/17,083) (7080/105,973)
Total 4.5% 7.3% 7 .8% 6 .5%(4518/99,447) (12,690/173,617) (3658/46,640) (20,866/319,704)
* State and Superior data were combined for each county .
Table 1DComparison of Changes in Filing Rates and Population
Irwin and Oconee Counties : 1994 - 1997
Irwin Oconee
94-95
% increase in population + 1 .3% +5.0%
% increase in tort filings + .8% +2 .4%
95-96
% increase in population +1 .4% +3 .7%
% increase in tort filings + .l% + .7%
96-97
% increase in population +1 .7% +4 .6%
% increase in tort filings + .4% + .4%
94-97
increase in population +4.5% +14.0%
% increase in tort filings +1 .3% +3 .5%
Table lEComparison of Changes in Filing Rates and Population
Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett Counties1995 - 1997*
Cobb Fulton Gwinnett TOTAL
95-96
% increase in population +2.4% +1 .9% +43% +2,7%
% increase in tort filings - .1% - .6% + 1 .1% - .3%
96-97
% increase in population +2,5% + 1 .1% +4.9% +2.6%
% increase in tort filings + .5% + .7% - 1 .1% + .4%
95-97
% increase in population +5 .0% +3 .1% +9 .5% +5 .4%
% increase in tort filings + .4% + .1% no change + .1%
* Superior and State Court data were combined for each county .
Table 1FRatio of Tort Filings in State Court to Superior Court : 1994-1997
Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Total
1994
state 1046
347
3 :1
a
817
277
2.9 :1
1863
624
3 :1
superior
ratio
1995
state 1083
331
3,2 :1
3385
1013
3.3:1
758
308
2.6:1
5226
1652
3 .2 :1
superior
ratio
1996
state 1100
334
3,3 :1
3224
941
3 .4 :1
950
359
2.6:1
5274
1634
3,2:1
superior
ratio
1997
state 1328
342
3 .9 :1
3192
935
3 .4 :1
797
486
1 .6 :1
5317
1763
3 :1
superior
ratio
Total
state 4557
1354
3 .4:1
9801
2889
3 .4:1
3322
1430
2.3:1
17,680
5,673
3 :1
superior
ratio
a Data were not collected .
Table 2ARate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population
Superior Courts : 1994-1997
1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
Bibb 147 .3 163 .2 138 .0 163 .5 153 .0Cobb
Fulton
68 .1
156 .7
63 .1
144 .5
62.1
131 .7
62.1
129.4
63 .8
140 .4
Gwinnett 63 .7 67 .3 75.2 97.0 76.5
Irwin 116 .5 103 .5 147 .4 167.3 134 .1
Oconee 89 .0 141 .2 174 .1 82.1 148 .4
Total 107 .9 104.0 99.2 105.7 104 .2
Table 2BRate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population
State Courts: 1994-1997
1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
Cobb 205.2 206.3 204.7 241 .0 214.6
Fulton a 482.9 451 .0 441.8 458 .3
Gwinnett 188.0 165.7 199 .0 159 .1 177 .6
Total 197.3 310.4 304.9 299 .6 288 .3
a Data were not collected .
Table 2CRate of Tort Filings per 100,000 Population
Cobb, Fulton & Gwinnett Counties1995-1997*
1995 1996 1997 TotalCobb 269.4 266.8 303.1 280.0
Fulton 627.4 582.7 571 .2 593 .5
Gwinnett 233.0 274.2 256.2 254.8
Total 408.6 399.4 399.0 402.2
* Superior and State Court data were combined for each county .
TABLE 3AType of Tort Claim in Superior Courts : 1994 - 1997
Primary Claim Identified
TYPE OF CLAIM COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb Fulton
Gwinnett Irwin
Oconeeauto 52.6% 60.2% 50 .2% 65 .6% 80.9% 86 .8% 55.8%dangerous animal .6% .5% .2% 1 .1% - - .5%premise liability 17 .4% 12.3% 17 .4% 5 .3% 4.3% 2 .3% 14.0%professionalmalpractice
7.5% 7 .2% 6 .8% 4.3% 6.4% 1 .6% 6.4%
slander/libel 1 .6% 3 .0% 2.2% 1 .3% 4.3% .8% 2.1%defective product
intentional torts
2.3%
7 .5%
2.8%
13 .8%
5 .0%
9 .5%
.8%
14 .8%
-
4.3%
-
7.8%
3 .4%
10.9%FELA 3 .5% .2% 2.9% 4.1% - - 2.7%otherb 7 .1% - 5.9% 2.6% - .8% 4 .2%TOTAL° 100,1%
(n=949)100%
(n=1354)100.1%(n=3972)
99 .9%(n=1430)
100.2%(n=47)
100.1%(n=129*)
100%(n=7881)
a Intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass io real property, trespass to chattels, conversion, intentionalinfliction of emotional distress .
b Other includes unspecified negligence, miscellaneous injury to person or property (e .g, boat accident, plane crash, golf cartaccident) and tort claims related to commercial transactions . It also includes five cases for which information was missing .
c Percentages may not total 100% because of rounding .
Type of Tort ClaimPrimary
Table 3Bin State Courts : 1994 - 1997Claim Identified
TYPE OF CLAIM COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb Fulton* Gwinnett
auto 80.8% 66.0% 76.8% 71 .9%
dangerous animal .5% .3% .6% .4%
premise liability 6.5% 12 .7% 2 .4% 9 .2%
professional malpractice 1 .8% 4.0% .9% 2.8%
slander/libel .4% .7% .2% .5%
defective product 1 .7% 3 .3% .5% 2.4%
intentional torta 6.9% 10.8% 4 .4% 8 .6%
FELA .3% .5% 9 .9% 2 .2%
otherb 1 .1% 1 .6% 4.2% 2 .0%
TOTAL` 100%(n=4557)
99 .9%(n=9801)
99.9%(n=3322)
100%(n=17,680)
* 1995 - 1997 data only for Fulton State Court .
a Intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to real property, trespass to chattels, conversion, intentionalinfliction of emotional distress .
b Other includes unspecified negligence, miscellaneous injury to person or property (e .g . boat accident, plane crash, golf cartaccident), and tort claims related to commercial transactions . It also includes cases for which information was missing .
c Percentages may not total 100% because of rounding .
Type of Tort Claim in Cobb,Table 3C
Fulton and Gwinnett Counties*1995 - 1997
TYPE OF CLAIM COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb Fulton Gwinnett
auto 76 .6% 62 .2% 71 .7% 67.0%
dangerous animal .5% .3% - .7% .4%
premise liability 8.0% 13 .7% 3 .0% 10 .6%
professionalmalpractice
3 .1% 4 .6% 2.1% 3 .8%
slander/libel 1.1% 1 .1% .5% 1 .0%
defective product 2 .3% 3 .4% .7% 2.8%
intentional torts 7 .2% 10.6% 9 .5% 9 .7%
FELA .2% 1 .3% 8 .8% 2.3%
otherb 1 .2% 2 .5% 3 .0% 2 .3%
TOTAL° 100 .2%(4519)
99 .7%(12,689)
100%(3,658)
99 .9%(20,866)
* Superior and State Court data combined for each county .
a Intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to real property, trespass to chattels, conversion, intentionalinfliction of emotional distress .
b Other includes unspecified negligence, miscellaneous injury to person or property (e.g . boat accident, plane crash, golf cartaccident), and tort claims related to commercial transactions . It also includes cases for which information was missing .
c Percentages may not total 100% because of rounding .
TABLE 4AType of Litigant in Superior Court*
1994 - 1997
PLAINTIFF COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
individual 94 .9% 97.0% 97 .4% 99.2% 80 .9% 87.6% 97 .1%(901) (1314) (3870) (1419) (38) (113) (7655)
insurance 5 .7% .8% 1 .3% .8% 14.9% 10 .9% 1 .9%(54) (11) (51) (11) (7) (14) (148)
bank/financial - .07% .02% .06% - - .03%(1) (1) (1) (3)
hospital/medical - - .02% .3% - - .06%(1) (4) (5)
other business 1 .4% 2 .7% 1 .7% .8% 4.3% 1 .6% 1 .7%(13) (37) (69) (12) (2) (2) (135)
government .1% .15% .2% .06% - - .1%agency (1) (2) (8) (1) (12)
other 1 .3% .14% - .5% - - .2%(12) (2) (7) (21)
TOTAL** 949 1354 3972 1430 47 129 7881(981) (1367) (4000) (1455) (7979)
DEFENDANT COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
individual 70.7%(671)
81 .5%(1104)
67 .1%(2667)
76 .7%(1097)
95 .7%(45)
98 .4%(127)
72 .5%(5711)
insurance 5.4%(51)
5 .5%(75)
5 .7%(227)
18 .1%(259)
17.0%(8)
15 .5%(20)
8 .1%(640)
bank/ financial .7%(7)
1 .3%(17)
.9%(37)
.1%(2)
- - .8%(63)
hospital/medical 5 .6%(53)
4 .2%(57)
5 .5%(217)
3 .2%(46)
2.1%(1)
2 .3%(3)
4.8%(377)
other business 37.8%(359)
30.4%(412)
46 .6%(1849)
32.7%(468)
19.1%(9)
11 .6%(15)
39.5%(3112)
governmentagency
4 .2%(40)
2.9%(39)
11 .1%(440)
1 .7%(25)
2 .1%(1)
- 6.9%(545)
other .9%(9)
.2%(3)
.4%(14)
.3%(4)
- - .4%(30)
TOTAL** 949(1190)
1354(1707)
3972(5451)
1430(1901)
47(64)
129(165)
7881(10,478)
* Percentage of plaintiff type in specific county, based on number of cases .
* * Number of plaintiffs exceeds number of cases in some counties because of multiple plaintiffs .
TABLE 4BType of Litigant in State Court*
1994- 1997
PLAINTIFF COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fultona
Gwinnett
individual 75 .9% 79 .8% 90.2% 80.7%(3457) (7821) (2996) (14,274)
insurance 22.2% 16 .9% 8 .8% 16.7%(1013) (1653) (291) (2957)
bank/financial .02% .02% - .03(1) (6) (7)
hospital/medical .02% .09% .03% .06%(1) (9) (1) (11)
other business 2.9% 3.2% 1 .7% 2 .8%(130) (312) (55) (497)
government .08% .1% .09% .1%agency (4) (11) (3) (18)
other .06% .3% .01% .2%(3) (31) (4) (38)
TOTAL** 4557 9801 3322 17,680(4609) (9843) (3350) (17,802)
DEFENDANT COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
individual 96.3%(3934)
73 .6%(7216)
82.7%(2748)
78 .6%(13,898)
insurance 5.3%(240)
5.7%(561)
13 .6%(451)
7.1%(1,252)
bank/financial .2%(7)
.5%(54)
.03%(1)
.4%(62)
hospital/medical 1 .3%(58)
3 .1%(299)
.8%(27)
2 .2%(384)
other business 18 .5%(842)
35 .8%(3504)
24.4%(811)
29 .2%(5157)
governmentagency
.4%(20)
1 .3%(129)
.4%(14)
.9%(163)
other .2%(10)
.3 %(33)
.2%(6)
.3%(49)
TOTAL** 4557(5111)
9801(11,796)
3322(4058)
17,680(20,965)
* Percentage of plaintiff type in specific county, based on number of cases .
** Number of plaintiffs exceeds number of cases in some counties because of multiple plaintiffs .
a 1995 - 1997 data only for Fulton County .
Table 4CNumber of Litigants in Tort Litigation
Superior Court: 1994 - 1997*
PLAINT1tFS COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
1 75.0% 71 .9% 74 .8% 74.9% 83 .0% 74 .4% 76.5%
2 20.7% 24,7% 20,2% 19.2% 14.9% 19.4% 20.8%
3 2 .5% 2.6% 2.7% 4 .5% 2.1% 6.2% 3 .1%
4 .7% .5% 1 .5% .7% - - 1 .1%
5 .4% .1% .3% .4% - - .3%
6 .2% .1% .1% .06% - - ,08%
7 - .1% .1% .1% - - .1%
8 .8% - .02% .06% - - .03%
9 .2% - .02% - - - .03%
10 - - .05% - - - .02%
10+ .2% .1% .1% - - - .06%
TOTALa 100.7%(949)
100%(1354)
99 .9%(3972)
99.9%(1430)
100%(47)
100%(129)
102%(7881)
DEI±NDANTS
1 63 .2% 59.2% 51 .2% 60% 57 .4% 56.6% 55.8%
2 23 .6% 26 .0% 29 .6% 26 .4% 29.8% 31 .8% 27 .7%
3 6.7% 9.0% 10.2% 9.4% 8 .5% 9 .3% 9.4%
4 3 .2% 2.6% 4.0% 2.3% - .8% 3 .2%
5 1 .1% 1 .1% 1 .9% .8% 4.3% - 1
6 .8% .9% 1 .1% .3% - 1 .6% ,9%
7 .4% .7% .9% .4% - - .7%
8 .3% .3% .3% .2% - - .3%
9 .1% .07% .3% .1% - - .2%
10 .2% .07% .1% - - - .06%
10+ .3% .07% .4% .1% - - .3%
TOTALa 99 .9%(949)
100%(1354)
100%(3972)
100%(1430)
100%(47)
100 .1 %(129)
100%(7881)
a Total percentage may not equal 100 because of rounding .
* % of cases w/ corresponding number of plaintiffs or defendants .
TABLE 4DNumber of Litigants in Tort Litigation
State Court : 1994 - 1997*
PLAINTl FS COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fultona
Gwinnett
1 76 .5% 79 .5% 71 .3% 77.2%
2 19.4% 16.6% 17.2% 17 .5%
3 2.6% 2.6% 3.2% 2 .7%
4 1 .1% .8% 1 .2% .9%
5 .3% .3% 1 .5% .5%
6 .1% .05% 1 .6% .4%
7 02% .07% 2 .3% .5%
8 - .08% 1 .4% .3%
9 - .01% .2% .05%
10 - - - -
10+ - .03% - '01%
TOTALa 100%(4557)
100%(9801)
99 .9%(3322)
100%(17,680)
DEFENDANTS
1 69.3% 61 .1% 68.5% 64.6%
2 23 .0% 24 .3% 22 .3% 23.6%
3 5 .1% 8 .0% 6 .1% 6 .9%
4 1 .4% 3 .0% 2.0% 2.4%
5 .5% 1 .4% .5% 1 .0%
6 .2% .8% .2% .5%
7 .2% .6% .06% .4%
8 .08% .4% .2% .2%
9 .04% .1% .03% .1%
10 .06% .08% .03% .1%
10+ .04% .3% .2% .2%
TOTA12 99.9%(4557)
100%(9801)
100.1%(3322)
100%(17,680)
a Total percentage may not equal 100 because of rounding .
b 1995-1997 data only for Fulton County .
* % of cases w/ corresponding number of plaintiffs or defendants .
TABLE 5ANumber of Attorneys - Superior Court
1994 - 1997
PLAINTh1• COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
cases w/ 2.4% 2 .5% 3.8% 2.5% 2.1% 2.3% 3 .1%no attorneys (23) (34) (150) (35) (1) (3) (246)
cases w/ 80.5% 97.0% 91 .3% 78.5% 95.7% 76.0% 88.5%1 attorney (764) (1313) (3627) (1121) (45) (98) (6968)
cases w/ 15 .6% .2% 4.1% 18 .2% 2 .1% 21 .7% 7 .6%2 attorneys (148) (2) (161) (260) (1) (28) (600)
cases w/ 1 .4% .4% .5% .9% - - .6%3 attorneys (13) (5) (18) (13) (49)
cases w/ .1% - .1% - - - .06%4 attorneys (1) (4) (5)
cases w/5 or - - .3% - - - .1%5+ attorneys (11) (11)
TOTAL* 100% 100.1% 100.1% 100.1% 99.9% 100% 99 .9%(949) (1354) (3972) (1430) (47) (129) (7881)
DEFENSE COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
cases w/no attorneys
17 .8%(169)
10.6%(144)
12.6%(501)
10.7%(153)
32 .0%(15)
20.2%(26)
12.8%(1008)
cases w/1 attorney
52.1%(494)
76 .6%(1036)
66 .4%(2637)
55 .8%(798)
57.5%(27)
64 .3%(83)
64 .4%(5075)
cases w/2 attorneys
23 .9%(227)
6.5%(88)
12.2%(483)
25.5%(364)
6.4%(3)
14.0%(18)
15 .0%(1183)
cases w/3 attorneys
4.4%(42)
.8%(11)
3 .1%(124)
6 .1%(87)
2 .1%(1)
.8%(1)
3 .4%(266)
cases w/4 attorneys
1 .3%(12)
.2%(3)
1 .2%(47)
1 .4%(20)
2.1%(1)
.8%(1)
1 .1%(84)
cases w/5 or5+ attorneys
.5%(5)
.2%(2)
1 .0%(39)
.5%(7)
- .7%(53)
missing - 5 .2%(70)
3 .5%(141)
.06%(1)
- 2.7%(212)
TOTAL* 100%(949)
100.1%(1354)
100%(3972)
100%(1430)
100.1%(47)
100.1%(129)
100 .1%(7881)
* Totals may not equal 100% becau e of rounding .
TABLE 5BNumber of Attorneys - State Court
1994 - 1997
PLAINTIrr COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fultona
Gwinnett
cases w/ 1 .4% 1 .5% .3% 1 .2%no attorneys
l (62) (145) (10) (217)
cases w/ 81 .1% 84 .3% 69 .0% 80 .6%1 attorney (3697) (8261) (2290) (14,248)
cases w/ 16.0% 11 .5% 19.6% 14.2%2 attorneys (730) (1132) (650) (2,512)
cases w/ 1 .3% 1 .9% 2.2% 1 .8%3 attorneys (60) (185) (74) (319)
cases w/ .09% .3% 8 .9% 1 .9%4 attorneys (4) (28) (296) (328)
cases w/5 or .09% .09% .03% .07%5+ attorneys (4) (9) (1) (14)
missing - .4% .03% .2%(41) (1) (42)
TOTAL* 99.9% 100% 100% 100%(4557) (9801) (3322) (17,680)
DEFENSE COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
cases w/no attorneys
27 .3%(1245)
11 .6%(1133)
19 .4%(644)
17.1%(3022)
cases w/1 attorney
44.9%(2047)
48 .6%(4761)
47.8%(1587)
47 .5%(8395)
cases w/2 attorneys
16 .6%(754)
16 .8%(1643)
24 .7%(821)
1
18 .2%(3218)
cases w/3 attorneys
3 .8%(172)
3 .8%(370)
5.5%(183)
4 .1%(725)
cases w/4 attorneys
.8%(36)
1 .3%(128)
2 .0%(65)
1 .3%(229)
cases w/5 or5+ attorneys
.3%(13)
.9%(93)
.6%(20)
.7%(126)
missing 6 .4%(290)
17 .1%(1673)
.06%(2)
11 .1%(1965)
TOTAL* 100 .1%(4557)
100 .1%(9801)
100%(3322)
100%(17,680)
a 1995 - 1997 data only for Fulton County .
* Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding .
TABLE 6AType of Disposition - Superior Courts 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
Disposed atTrial
jury 3 .3%(25)
1 .9%(20)
4 .0%(133)
8 .6%(87)
- 4 .7%(4)
4.3%(269)
bench .4%(3)
.4%(4)
.6%(19)
.2%(2)
3 .2%(1)
1 .2%(1)
.5%(30)
directed verdict, .1%(1)
- .03%(1)
- - - .03%(2)
Disposedw/out Trial
settlementsa 54 .8%(414)
60.5%(635)
50.3%(1678)
61 .7%(625)
54 .8%(17)
59.3%(51)
54 .5%(3420)
summaryjudgments
7 .9%(60)
3.5%(32)
2.8%(94)
2 .7%(25)
3 .2%(1)
3 .5%(3)
3 .4%(215)
defaultjudgments
3 .4%(26)
1 .0%(10)
1 .5%(49)
.7%(7)
9.7%(3)
2.3%(2)
1 .5%(97)
dismissals' 20.5%(155)
28 .1%(295)
28 .3%(945)
22.8%(231)
25.8%(8)
24.4%(21)
26.4%(1655)
arbitration/adm term
4.8%(36)
.3%(3)
1 .6%(52)
.2%(2)
- - 1 .5%(93)
transfers 4.0%(30)
3 .9%(41)
10.2%(342)
3 .2%(32)
3 .2%(1)
2 .3%(2)
7 .1%(448)
missing` .7%(5)
1 .0%(10)
.7%(25)
.2%(2)
- 2 .3%(2)
.7%(44)
Total Disposed d 99.9%(755)
100 .6%(1050)
100%(3338)
100.3%(1013)
99.9%(31)
100%(86)
99.9%(6273)
pending/staved 194 304 634 417 16 43 1608
Total Cases 949 1354 3972 1430 47 129 7881
a These include voluntary dismissals w/ prejudice and consent decrees/judgment
b These include voluntary dismissals w/out prejudice, involuntary dismissals w/ and w/out prejudice, dismissed for want ofprosecution, judgment in pleadings and unspecified dismissals .
c These cases were disposed w/out trial but type of disposition not specified,
d Total percentage disposed may not equal 100% because of rounding .
TABLE 6BType of Disposition by Type of Claim
Superior Courts : 1994 - 1997
Tvpe of Claim% of Cases Disposed
Type of Disposition auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
malpractice slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
Disposed at Trial
jury 5 .2%(188)
2.9%(1)
2.5%(23)
3 .1%(12)
3 .7%(5)
2 .4%(5)
4.4%(24)
1 .8%(2)
3 .2%(9)
bench 0.4%(13)
- 0 .2%(2)
0.3%(1)
1 .5%(2)
0.5%(1)
1 .6%(9)
- 0.7%(2)
directed verdict - - 0.1%(1)
- 0.7%(1)
- - - -
Disposed w/out Trial
settlements 61 .3%(2226)
55 .9%(19)
51 .5%(477)
36 .7%(143)
34 .6%(47)
32.9%(69)
39.3%(216)
76 .4%(84)
48 .9%(139)
summary judgments 0.7%(43)
14.7%(5)
9.5%(88)
4.1%(16)
7.4%(10)
4.3%(9)
4.7%(26)
2.7%(3)
5.3%(15)
default 1 .7%(62)
- 0.6%(6)
0.3%(1)
- 1 .4%(3)
3 .8%(21)
- 1 .4%(4)
dismissals 22.4%(815)
17.6%(6)
25 .7%(238)
48 .5%(189)
37 .5%(51)
30.5%(64)
34.7%(191)
12 .7%(14)
30.6%(87)
arbitation/administra-tive termination
1,4%(51)
- 2 .1%(19)
1 .0%(4)
2.9%(4)
- 1 .1%(6)
2 .7%(3)
2.1(6)
transfers 5 .9%(215)
8 .8%(3)
7 .0%(65)
5 .4%(21)
9 .6%(13)
28 .1%(59)
10 .4%(57)
0.9%(1)
4.9%(14)
missing 0 .6%(20)
- 0.8%(7)
0.8%(3)
2.2%(3)
- - 2.7%(3)
2.8%(8)
Total Disposed* 99 .6%(3633)
99.9%(34)
100%(926)
100.2%(390)
100 .1%(136)
100.1%(210)
100%(550)
99.9%(110)
99 .9%(284)
pending - stayed 765 5 177 114 29 58 309 103 48
Total Cases 4398 39 1103 504 165 268 859 213 332
* Total percentage disposed may not equal 100% because of rounding,
TABLE 6CType of Disposition - State Courts: 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fulton*
Gwinnett
Disposed at Trial
jury 3 .7%(140)
2 .8%(217)
5 .7%(158)
3 .6%(515)
bench 1 .6%(59)
1 .1%(84)
1 .0%(27)
1 .2%(170)
directed verdict - .01%(1)
.04%(1)
.01%(2)
Disposed w/out Trial
settlements" 55,7%(2114)
48 .8%(3849)
51 .6%(1434)
51 .2%(7397)
summaryjudgments
2.0%(76)
2,9%(232)
1 .3%(37)
2.4%(345)
defaultjudgments
9.3%(351)
8.6%(681)
3.3%(92)
7.8%(1124)
dismissalsb 24 .6%(934)
25.5%(2006)
33 .4%(927)
26 .8%(3867)
arbitration/adm term
.4%(16)
.2%(14)
.3%(7)
.3%(37)
transfers 2.1%(80)
8 .5%(673)
3 .1%(87)
5 .8%(840)
missing' .6%(24)
1 .6%(124)
.3%(8)
1 .1%(156)
Total Disposed d 100%(3794)
100%(7881)
100%(2778)
100.2%(14,453)
pending/stayed 763 1920 544 3227
Total Cases 4557 9801 3322 17,680
* 1995 - 1997 cases only for Fulton County .
a These include voluntary dismissals w/ prejudice and consent decrees/judgment .
b These include voluntary dismissals w/out prejudice, involuntary dismissals w/ and w/out prejudice, dismissed for want ofprosecution, judgment in pleadings and unspecified dismissals .
c These cases were disposed w/out trial but type of disposition not specified .
d Total percentage disposed may not equal 100% because of rounding .
TABLE 6DType of Disposition by Type of Claim
State Courts : 1994 - 1997*
Tvpe of Claim% of Cases Disposed
Type of Disposition auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
malpractice slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
Disposed at Trial
jury 4 .3%(447)
1 .9%(1)
1 .5%(20)
2 .8%(10)
1 .5%(1)
0.9%(3)
2.2%(25)
0.5%(2)
2 .0(6)
bench 1 .2%(129)
- 0.2%(3)
0 .3%(1)
3 .0%(2)
- 2 .8%(32)
- 1 .0%(3)
directed verdict 0.01%(1)
- - - - - 0.1(1)
Disposed w/out Trial
settlements 53 .2%(5580)
59.6%(31)
52.6%(696)
55.2%(197)
34 .8%(23)
43.1%(143)
42 .3%(491)
24.1%(91)
48 .8%(145)
summary judgments 1 .1%(117)
3.8%(2)
9.5%(126)
3 .4%(12)
12.1%(8)
2.4%(8)
5 .1%(59)
0 .3%(1)
4,0%(12)
default 9,5%(995)
7 .7%(4)
1 .1%(15)
0.6%(2)
1 .5%(1)
1 .2%(4)
6.3%(73)
2 .1%(8)
7 .4%(22)
dismissals 25.3%(2653)
23.1%(12)
23.2%(307)
32.8%(117)
31 .8%(21)
24.1%(80)
29.0%(336)
69.0%(260)
27 .3%(81)
arbitration/adminis-trative termination
0.2%(24)
- 0 .2%(3)
0.3%(1)
- 0 .3%(1)
0.3%(3)
0 .5%(2)
1 .0%(3)
transfers 4 .2%(444)
1 .9%(1)
10 .1%(134)
4.8%(17)
15 .1%(10)
25%(83)
10%(116)
2 .7%(10)
8 .4%(25)
missing 0 .9%(99)
1 .9%(10
1 .4%(19)
- - 3 .0%(10)
2.1%(24)
0.8%(3)
-
Total Disposed 99.9%(10,489)
99.9%(52)
99.8%(1323)
100.2%(357)
99 .8%(66)
100%(332)
100.2%(1160)
100%(377)
99 .9%(297)
pending - stayed 2222 18 303 141 27 92 360 12 52
Total Cases 12,711 70 1626 498 93 424 1520 389 349
* 1995 - 1997 data only for Fulton County
TABLE 6EType of Disposition by Type of Claim
Superior and State Courts : 1994 - 1997*
Type of Claim
auto
dangerous
premise
professional
slander
product intentionalanimal
liability
malpractice
and libel
liability
tortFELA other
Disposed at Trial
jury 4.5%(635)
2.3%(2)
1 .9%(43)
2.9%(22)
3 .0%(6)
1 .5%(8)
2 .9%(49)
0 .8%(4)
2 .6%(15)
bench 1 .0%(142)
- 0 .2%(5)
0.3%(2)
2.0%(4)
0 .2%(1)
2.4%(41)
- 0.9%(5)
directed verdict 0.01%(1)
- 0.04%(1)
- 0.5%(1)
- 0 .05%(1)
-
Disposed w/out Trial
settlements 55 .3%(7806)
58 .1%(50)
52 .2%(1173)
45 .5%(340)
34.7%(70)
39 .1%(212)
41 .3%(707)
35 .9%(175)
48 .9%(284)
summaryjudgments
1 .1%(160)
8 .1%(7)
9.5%(214)
3 .7%(28)
8.9%(18)
3 .1%(17)
5.0%(85)
0.8%(4)
4.6%(27)
defaultjudgments
7 .5%(1057)
4 .7%(4)
0.9%(21)
0 .4%(3)
0.5%(1)
1 .3%(7)
5 .5%(94),
1 .6%(8)
4,5%(26)
dismissals' 24 .6%(3468)
20.9%(18)
24.2%(545)
41 .0%(306)
35 .6%(72)
26.6%(144)
30.8%(527)
56 .3%(274)
28 .9%(168)
arbitration/adm term
0.5%(75)
- 1 .0%(22)
0.7%(5)
2.0%(4)
0.2%(1)
0,5%(9)
1 .0%(5)
1 .5%(9)
transfers 4.7%(659)
4.7%(4)
8 .8%(199)
5 .1%(38)
11 .4%(23)
26.2%(142)
10 .1%(173)
2.3%(11)
6.7%(39)
missing` 0.8%(119)
1 .2%(1)
1 .2%(26)
0.4%(3)
1 .5%(3)
1 .8%(10)
1 .4%(24)
1 .2%(6)
1 .4%(8)
Total Disposedd 100%(14,122)
100%(86)
99 .9%(2249)
100%(747)
100 .1%(202)
100%(542)
100%(1710)
99.9%(487)
100%(581)
pending/stayed 2987 23 480 255 56 150 669 115 100
Total Cases 17,109 109 2729 1002 258 692 2379 602 681
* 1995-1997 data only from Fulton State Court .
Table 7AProportion of Cases Disposed Within Particular Time Periods
Superior Courts
year of filing cases disposed within one year cases disposed within two years
1994 57.7% 83 .3%(1133/1963) (1636/1963)
1995 55 .6% 83 .6%(1080/1943) (1624/1943)
1996 53 .1%(1009/1900)
Total 55.5% 83.5%(3222/5806) (3260/3906)
Table 7BProportion of Cases Disposed Within Particular Time Periods
State Courts
year of filing cases disposed within one year cases disposed within two years
1994* 55 .4% 85.5%(1032/1863) (1593/1863)
1995 50.0% 75.8%(2615/5226) (3959/5226)
1996 51 .3%(2707/5274)
Total 51 .4% 78.3%(6354/12,363) (5552/7089)
* No 1994 data from Fulton State Court .
Table 7CProportion of Cases Disposed Within Particular Time Periods
Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett Counties
year of filing cases disposed within one year cases disposed within two years
Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Cobb Fulton Gwinnett
1995 52.6% 50 .7% 55.1% 77 .5% 74.7% 92 .3%(744/1414) (2229/4398) (587/1066) (1096/1414) (3287/4398) (984/1066)
1996 48 .9% 51 .5% 57 .7% --(701/1434) (2146/4165) (755/1309)
Total 50.7% 51 .1% 56 .5% -- --(1445/2848) (4375/8563) (1342/2375)
Table 8AProportion and Outcome of Jury Trials
Superior Courts: 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Irwin Oconee
Proportion
jury trials of 2.6% 1 .5% 3 .3% 6.1% no jury trials 3 .1% 3 .4%all torts filed (25/949) (20/1354) (133/3972) (87/1430) (4/129) (269/7881)
% jury trials of 3 .3% 1 .9% 4.0% 8.8% - 4.7% 4.3%all torts disposed (25/755) (20/1050) (133/3338) (87/1013) (4/86) (269/6273)
Outcome
plaintiff 45,8% 12.5% 48 .2% 61 .4% - 75% 50.6%(11/24) (2/16) (54/112) (51/83) (3/4) (121/239)
defense 41 .7% 75.0% 48.2% 38.6% - 25% 45.6%(10/24) (12/16) (54/112) (32/83) (1/4) (109/239)
mixed 12.5% 12 .5% 3 .6% - -- - 3 .8%(3/24) (2/16) (4/112) (9/239)
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100% - 100% 100%Identifiable (24) (16) (112) (83) (4) (239)Outcome
Trials with No 1 4 21 4 - - 30IdentifiableOutcome
Total Trials 25 20 133 87 - 4 269
Table 8BOutcome of Jury Trials by Type of Claim
Superior Courts: 1994 - 1997
Type of Claim
Outcome auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
rbLA other TOTAL
plaintiff 54,8% 100% 50.0% - 75% 80% 28.6% 50% 55.6% 50 .6%(91/166 (1/1) (10/20) (3/4) (4/5) (6/21) (1/2) (5/9) (121/23
9)defense 42.2% - 50.0% 90.9% 25% 20% 57.1% 50% 44.4% 45.6%
(70/166 (10/20) (10/11) (1/4) (1/5) (12/21) (1/2) (4/9) (109/239)
mixed or mistrial 3 .0% - - 9.1% - - 14.3% - - 3.8%(5/166) (1/11) (3/21) (9/239)
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Identifiable Outcome (166) (1) (20) (11) (4) (5) (21) (2) (9) (239)Trials with No Identifiable 22 - 3 1 1 - 3 - 30Outcome -
Total Trials 188 1 23 12 5 5 24 2 9 269
Table 8CProportion and Outcome of Jury Trials
State Courts ; 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb Fultona Gwinnett
Proportion
% jury trials ofall torts filed
3 .1%(140/4557)
2.2%(217/9801)
4.8%(158/3322)
2.9%(515/17,680)
% jury trials of 3 .7% 2 .7% 5 .7% 3 .6%all torts disposed (140/3794) (217/7881) (158/2778) (515/14,453)
Outcome
plaintiff 55% 57.8% 56.4% 56 .6%(66/120) (104/180) (84/149) (254/449)
defense 45% 41 .7% 43.6% 43 .2%(54/120) (75/180) (65/149) (194/449)
mixed or - 0.6% - 0.2%mistrial (1/180) (1/449)
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100%Identifiable (120) (180) (149) (449)Outcome
Trials with No 20 37 9 66IdentifiableOutcome
Total Trials 140 217 158 515
a 1995 - 1997 data only .
Table 8DOutcome of Jury Trials by Type of Claim
State Courts: 1994 - 1997*
Type of Claim
Outcome auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other TOTAL
plaintiff 58 .6%(231/394)
100%(1/1)
42 .9%(6/14 .)
33 .3%(3/9)
- - 45%(9/20)
50%(1/2)
60%(3/5)
56 .6%(254/449)
defense 41 .1%(162/394)
- 57 .1%(8/14)
66 .7%(6/9)
100%(1/1)
100%(3/3)
55%(11/20)
50%(1/2)
40%(2/5)
43 .2%(194/449)
mixed or mistrial 0.3%(1/394)
- - - - - - - - 0.2%(1/449)
Total Trials withIdentifiable Outcome
100%(394)
100%(1)
100%(14)
100%(9)
100%(1)
100%(3)
100%(20)
100%(2)
100%(5)
100%(449)
Trials with No IdentifiableOutcome
53 - 6 1 - - 5 - 1 66
Total Trials 447 1 20 10 1 3 25 2 6 515
* 1995 - 1997 data only for Fulton County
Table 8EOutcome of Jury Trials by Type of ClaimSuperior and State Courts : 1994-1997
Type of Claim
Outcome auto dangerous premis professiona slander product intentional FELA otheranimal e
liability1
malpractice& libel liability tort
plaintiff 57 .5% 100% 47.1% 15 .0% 60 .0% 50.0% 36 .6% 50 .0% 57 .1%(322/560) (2/2) (16/34) (3/20) (3/5) (4/8) (15/41) (2/4) (8/14)
defense 41 .4% - 52 .9% 80.0% 40,0% 50 .0% 56.1% 50.0% 42 .9%(232/560) (18/34) (16/20) (2/5) (4/8) (23/41) (2/4) (6/14)
mixed or mistrial 1 .1% -- - 5 .0% - - 7 .3% - -(6/650) (1/20) (3/41)
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%IdentifiableOutcome
(560) (2) (34) (20) (5) (8) (41) (4) (14)
Trials with NoIdentifiableOutcome
75 - 9 2 1 - 8 - 1
Total Trials 635 2 43 22 6 8 49 4 15
Table 9AProportion and Outcome of Bench Trials
Superior Courts : 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Irwin Oconee
Proportion
% bench trials of .3% .3% .5% .1% 2.1% .8% .4%all torts filed (3/949) (4/1354) (19/3972) (2/1430) (1/47) (1/129) (30/788)
% bench trials of .4% .4% .6% .2% 3.2% 1 .2% .5%all torts disposed (3/755) (4/1050) (19/3338) (2/1013) (1/31) (1/86) (30/6273)
Outcome
plaintiff 66.7% 100% 64.3% 100% 100% 100% 72.7%(2/3) (2/2) (9/14) (1/1) (1/1) (1/1) (16/22)
defense 33.3% - 35.7% - - - 27 .3%(1/3) (5/14) (6/22)
mixed or - - - - - - -mistrial
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Identifiable (3) (2) (14) (1) (1) (1) (22)Outcome
Trials with No - 2 5 1 - - 8IdentifiableOutcome
Total Trials 3 4 19 2 1 1 30
Table 9BOutcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim
Superior Courts: 1994 - 1997
Outcome Type of Claim
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other TOTAL
plaintiff 77.8%(7/9)
- - - 100%(2/2)
- 85.7%(6/7)
- 50%(1/2)
72.7%(16/22)
defense 22 .2%(2/9)
- 100%(1/1)
100%(1/1)
- - 14 .3%(1/7)
- 50%(1/2)
27 .3%(6/22)
mixed or mistrial - - - - - - - - - -
Total Trials withIdentifiable Outcomes
100%(9)
- 100%(1)
100%(1)
100%(2)
- 100%(7)
- 100%(2)
100%(22)
Trials with No IdentifiableOutcome
4 - 1 - - 1 2 - - 8
Total Trials13
-2 1 2 1 9
-2 30
Table 9CProportion and Outcome of Bench Trials
State Courts: 1994 - 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb Fultona Gwinnett
Proportion
% bench trials of 1 .3% .9% .8% 1 .0%all torts filed (59 .4557) (84/9800) (27/3322) (170/17,679)
% bench trials of 1 .6% 1 .1% 1 .0% 1 .2%all torts disposed (59/3794) (84/7880) (27/2778) (170/14,452)
Outcome
plaintiff 88 .2% 76.4% 76 .9% 81 .5%(45/51) (42/55) (10/13) (97/119)
defense 11 .8% 23 .6% 23 .1% 18 .5%(6/51) (13/55) (3/13) (22/119)
mixed or -- - - -mistrial
Total Trials with 100% 100% 100% 100%Identifiable (51) (55) (13) (119)Outcomes
Trials with No 8 29 14 51IdentifiableOutcome
Total Trials59 84 27 170
a 1995 - 1997 data only
Table 9DOutcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim
State Courts : 1994 - 1997*
Outcome Type of Claim
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other TOTAL
plaintiff 85 .9%(79/92)
- 50%(1/2)
100%(1/1)
100%(1/1)
- 68 .2%(15/22)
- -- 81 .5%(97/119)
defense 14 .1%(13/92)
- 50%(1/2)
- - - 31 .8%(7/22)
- 100%(1)
18 .5%(22/119)
mixed or mistrial - - - - - - - - -- --
Total Trials withIdentifiableOutcome
100%(92)
- 100%(2)
100%(1)
100%(1)
- 100%(22)
- 100%(1)
100%(119)
Trials with No IdentifiableOutcome
37 - 1 - 1 - 10 - 2 51
Total Trials 129 - 3 1 2 - 32 - 3 170
* 1995 - 1997 data only .
Table 9EOutcome of Bench Trials by Type of Claim
Superior and State Courts: 1994-1997
Type of Claim
Outcome auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slander& libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
plaintiff 85.1%(86/101)
- 33 .3%(1/3)
50.0%(1/2)
100%(3/3)
- 72.4%(21/29)
- 33 .3%(1/3)
defense 14,9%(15/101)
- 66 .7%(2/3)
50.0%(1/2)
- - 27.6%(8/29)
- 66 .7%(2/3)
mixed or mistrial - - - - - - - - -
Total Trials withIdentifiableOutcome
100%(101)
- 100%(3)
100%(2)
100%(3)
- 100%(29)
- 100%(3)
Trials with NoIdentifiableOutcome
41 - 2 - 1 1 12 - 2
Total Trials 142 - 5 2 4 1 41 - 5
Table 10ACompensatory Damages - Superior and State Courts
Jury Trials
Superior range number* mean median
Bibb 1,899 - 1,750,000 10 207,045 14,160
Cobb 2,988 -43,517 3 17,168 5,000
Fulton 1 -750,000 46 52,378 10,650
Gwinnett 128 - 450,000 44 23,115 4,802
Irwin - - - -
Oconee 3,250 - 190,000 3 69,083 14,000
Total 1 - 1,750,000 106 54,298 7,859
Stateb range number* mean median
Cobb 141 - 150,300 65 20,227 5,976
Fultona 64 - 14,915,670 92 221,984 5,500
Gwinnett 51-937,144 78 27,114 5,102
Total 51 - 14,915,670 235 101,499 5,650
Superior & StateCombined
1 - 14,915,670 341 86,827 5,671
* These consist of judgments for plaintiff (all or partial) w/ data on damages .
a 1995 - 1997 data only,
b Means for Fulton State and for all State (Total), are substantially inflated by the large compensatory award of 14 .9 million dollars .Excluding this, the mean for Fulton State is $60,515, for all State Courts is $38,191 and for Superior and State combined is$43,212 .
Table 10BCompensatory Damages by Type of Claim - Superior and State Courts
Jury Trials
SuperiorCourt
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slanderand libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
range 1-450,000 400 2,600-1,750,000
- 1,408-125,000
3500-750,000
2,500-43,517
- 2,805-225,000
number* 78 1 8 - 2 4 8 - 5
mean 25,839 - 277,666 - 63,204 237,938 14,025 - 65,625
median 6,905 - 54,916 - 63,204 99,125 10,088 - 25,000
StateCourt
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slanderand libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
range 51-1,787,500
58,000 4,564-65,000
30,000-14,915,670
- - 500-86,363 - 5,671-70,000
number* 215 1 6 3 - - 7 - 3
mean 36,519 - 27,076 5,181,890 - - 21,620 - 27,724
median 5,145 - 23,446 600,000 - - 6,980 - 7,500
* These consist of judgments for plaintiff (all or partial) w/ data on damages .
Table 10CCompensatory Damages - Superior and State Courts
Bench Trials
Superior range number* mean median
Bibb one of 500 1 - -
Cobb 20,000 - 36,000 2 28,000 28,000
Fulton 3,225 - 3,000,000 8 389,559 17,606
Gwinnett one of 7,984 1 - -
Irwin one of 280,000 1 - -
Oconee one of 3,391 1 - -
Total 500 - 3,000,000 14 247,453 17,606
State range number* mean median
Cobb 1,143 - 28,500 44 6,390 4,613
Fulton 409 - 127,246 40 18,902 7,142
Gwinnett 1,000 - 34,766 10 7,326 4,103
Total 409 - 127,246 94 11,814 5,600
* These consist of judgments for plaintiff (all or partial) w/ data on damages .
Table 10DCompensatory Damages by Type of Claim - Superior and State Courts
Bench Trials1994- 1997
SuperiorCourt
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slanderand libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
range 500-280,000
- - - 22,300-3,000,000
- 3,225-40,689
- -
number* 7 - - - 2 - 5 - -
mean 50,197 - - - 1,511,150 - 18,133 - -
median 7,800 - - - 1,511,150 - 18,767 - -
StateCourt
auto dangerousanimal
premiseliability
professionalmalpractice
slanderand libel
productliability
intentionaltort
FELA other
range 409-125,000
- 123,825 127,246 2,270 - 750-75,000 - -
number* 76 - 1 1 1 - 15 - -
mean 7,955 - - - - - 16,841 - -
median 5,117 - - - - - 9,339 - -
* These consist of judgments for plaintiffs (all or partial) w/ data on damages .
TABLE 11APunitive Damages in Superior Courts
1994- 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Bibb
Cobb
Fulton
Gwinnett
Irwin
Oconee
% punitives 15 .5% 25 .3% 22.1% 12.8% 4.3% 6 .2% 19 .8%sought - all torts (147/949) (343/1354) (877/3972) (183/1430) (2/47) (8/129) (1560/7881)
% punitives none .07% .08% .3% none none .1%awarded - all torts awarded (1/1354) (3/3972) (4/1430) awarded awarded (8/7881)
punitives - .3% .3% 2.2% - - .5%awarded - all sought (1/343) (3/877) (4/183) (8/1560)
punitives - none 1 .5% 4.6% - - 2.2%awarded - jury awarded (2/133) (4/87) (6/271)trials $500 $100
$750,000 $680$1500$12,000
% punitives awarded - 25% 5.3% none -- - 6 .7%- bench trials (1/4) (1/19) awarded (2/30)
$200,000 $20,000
TABLE 11BPunitive Damages in State Courts
1994- 1997
COUNTY TOTAL
Cobb
Fulton*
Gwinnett
%punitives 11 .7% 13 .4% 10.7% 12 .5%sought - all torts (533/4557) (1316/9801) (354/3322) (2203/17,679)
punitives .1% .02% none .03%awarded - all torts (5/4557) (2/9800) awarded (7/17,679)
% punitives 1 .0% .2% - .3%awarded - all sought (5/533) (2/1316) (7/2203)
% punitives .7% .5% - .4%awarded - jury (1/140) (1/216) (2/516)trials $55,663 $5000
% punitives awarded 6 .8% 1 .2% - 3 .0%- bench trials (4/59) (1/84) (5/170)
$2000 $564,000$5000$15,000$50,000
* 1995 - 1997