COVID-19 in the Courtroom: The Role of Mask Mandates and Source of Exposure on Negligence and Recklessness Decisions.

The current study examined whether business owners would be found liable for an employee's illness from COVID-19 contracted at work. We varied whether there was a mask mandate at the time of the employee's exposure (Yes or No), how the employee was exposed (an unmasked customer, an unmasked owner who forgot her mask, or an unmasked owner who did not require masks in her store) and measured participants' political orientation. Participants (N = 257) read and listened to a trial transcript about an employee that contracted COVID-19 at her workplace and was suing her employer for compensation to cover hospital bills. Participants were more likely to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible when a mask mandate was present and when an unmasked owner led to the employee's COVID-19 exposure compared to an unmasked customer. Furthermore, the more conservative the participant, the less likely they were to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible. In sum, presence of a mask mandate, owner exposure, and juror political orientation play an important role in civil litigation involving COVID-19.

Civil juror compensation and judgments of police use of force at the intersection of race and mental illness.

More than 53 million people come in contact with police each year, with people of color and those with mental illness (MI) being subjected to increased rates of contact. Sometimes police and civilian interactions have fatal outcomes, and these populations are disproportionately affected. As a result, families of these victims sometimes seek monetary compensation through civil litigation. The current study sought to understand how victim race and mental illness might impact civil juror decision-making in deadly police use of force cases. Participants (N = 177) were exposed to trial evidence and were assessed on a number of dimensions. Results display a strong influence of mock jurors' attitudes toward police legitimacy on compensatory damages, as well as interaction effects between attitudes toward police legitimacy and victim race on punitive damage awards and opinions on what professional consequences the involved police officer should face. Implications and future directions are discussed.