Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Impact Mitigation in Modern Football Helmets: Advances and Limitations of Position-Specific Designs
Published on: January 13, 2026
Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths
1Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC 27708-0360, USA. vidmar@law.duke.edu
Abstract:
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled for much less than the verdicts.
Related Concept Videos
False Memories
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information with...
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.
Torts I
Intentional...
The Availability Heuristic
Torts II
The Scientific Method

