Layperson's Legal Decision-Making: Fact-Finding, Negligence, and Damages
OTA Shozo
This paper presents the preliminary results of our internet-based RCT (randomized controlled trial) research. We investigate (1) whether layperson's fact-finding is rational in that it follows the Bayes Rule, (2) whether layperson's negligence-evaluation is reasonable in that it distinguishes the act and the outcome of a mistake, and (3) if and to what extent layperson's damages-assessment differs from that of a professional judge. We construct two vignettes; one about a wrongful prosecution of a public official who is accused of taking bribery based upon a real case; the other about a tort case where an infant suffered from anaphylaxis by the food provided by the nursery school based upon a real case. Our preliminary results are (1) layperson's fact-finding is modestly rational, (2) layperson's negligence-evaluation is reasonable, and (3) layperson's damages-assessment is far larger than that of a professional judge.