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