Much of the sentiment for tort reform on the value of life has been stimulated by the rare but newsworthy "runaway" verdicts. While damages for measuring the loss of enjoyment of life have been widely argued for decades, juries relied mainly on ad hoc methods to award plaintiff’s in injury and wrongful death cases. More recently, claims for such damages have been supported by the testimony of economists who provide objective information on the loss of enjoyment of life, or hedonic damages, resulting in more accurate awards based on the life values established by hedonic valuation.

Economic testimony on the value of life is becoming increasingly common. Testimony on hedonic damages can produce more consistent and rational jury verdicts. It can reduce the wide variability of awards which contributes to the current win/lose lottery effect of personal injury lawsuits. This encourages settlements rather than trials, and thereby reduces litigation and insurance costs. These are results we could all live with.

Relied upon by economists to calculate the loss of enjoyment of life damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, value of life literature in economics serves to provide estimates for the loss of society and companionship as a result of the death of a close family member.

Great controversy once surrounded Stanley V. Smith’s theory of hedonic damages when it was first introduced to the world of legal economics in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Hedonic damages theory is used to help determine the valuation of life by providing rough guidelines for valuing lost pleasure beyond a person’s worth in relation to their job/work.

The increased use of economic experts in commercial damage cases, as well as in personal injury and wrongful death cases, has resulted in the emergence of a group of experts who offer economic services but are unqualified and ill-trained in economics.

There wasn’t always a standard formula for calculating future lost wages when a plaintiff suffered a loss of enjoyment of life or hedonic damages. Before this methodology became standard practice in injury and wrongful death trials, economists faced an uphill battle to ensure fair settlements for plaintiffs in personal injury cases.

In a personal injury case, juries may be asked to consider the loss of the pleasure of life. Economists and financial experts sometimes testify in this area, but a reliable system for rating and quantifying such damages in personal injury cases has not been developed and communicated. An interdisciplinary approach for applying hedonic valuations establishes a foundational model.

Can we trust a jury in today’s modern world? Despite occasional bombastic headlines, the jury system remains one of the more reliable criminal trial methods ever devised. Here, we explore why juries can be trusted, and present peer-reviewed research that supports the civil jury system.