The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” Every state has civil courts, but the availability and conditions for civil jury trial varies.

In civil court, a monetary award is awarded for damages caused by one party to the other. There are two kinds of damages: compensatory and punitive. According to the RAND's Institute for Civil Justice, “punitive damage awards of any kind are relatively infrequent events, for the most part, occurring in less than 4 percent of all civil jury verdicts. However, in financial injury cases there is a 1 in 7 chance of a punitive award, and those awards represent a large share of the total damages.” The power of ordinary citizens to award punitive damages through civil juries is remains a perennial controversy.

This section of “The American Jury” provides resources for exploring different perspectives on the power of the civil jury to impose punitive damages. It includes lessons and materials that focus on a recent Chicago jury verdict involving a young musician, Rachel Barton, who sought damages after becoming trapped in the doors of a commuter train and suffering severe physical injuries. It also includes suggestions and information for creating classroom activities to help students understand these issues.

LIST OF LESSONS

Damages: Purposes, Strategies, Stakes & Outcomes

Damages in the Classroom: Creating A Simulation

Headline Case Study: The Rachel Barton Decision

LINKS TO RELEVANT SITES

7th Amendment to the United States Constitution [guarantee of civil jury trial in federal court]

Recalibrating the Scales of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform

Procedural Tort Reform: Lessons from Other Nations

The Politics of Jury Competence

Study Shows Importance of Financial Cases in Punitive Damages Debate; Personal Injuries Get the Headlines but Only Half of the Punitive Awards

PRINT RESOURCES

“The Rachel Barton Decision,” Chicago Tonight (March 1, 1999) [video].

Armstrong, Ken. “Analysis: Was [Rachel Barton]Verdict Fair? Legal Experts Can't Agree,” Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1999.

Bernstein, David E. “Procedural Tort Reform: Lessons from Other Nations,” Regulation, The Cato Review of Business & Government, pp. 1-7.

Constitutional Rights Foundation. “DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence: Does It Belong in the Courtroom?” Bill of Rights in Action, ( Summer 1997, Vol. 13, No. 4).

Corboy, Philip H. Final Arguments. Association of Trial Lawyers of America (1989).

Corboy, Philip H. “Why I Became a Trial Lawyer: I Did It My Way,” Trial (July 1996).

Edmond, Gary and David Mercer. “The Politics of Jury Competence,” from Technology and Public Participation (University of Wollongong, 1998).

Kadner, Phil. Some Cold Facts About Hot Coffee and Jury Awards,” Daily Southtown, March 7, 1996.

Moller, Erik, Nicholas M. Pace, and Stephen J. Carroll. Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Jury Verdicts. RAND Institute for Civil Justice (1997).

Pace, Kimberly A. “Recalibrating the Scales of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform,” American University Law Review (June 1997), pp. 1-12.

Peres, Judy. “Barton's Case Set to Enter a Risky Phase—The Jury,” Chicago Tribune, February 26, 1999.

Van Voris, Bob. “Juries Negative About Business,” The National Law Journal, November 14, 2000.