The effects of defendant account on damage award decisions

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the manner in which civil defendants account for their behavior influences compensatory and punitive damage awards. Jurors read three civil trial summaries, in which I manipulated injury severity (high vs. low), defendant reprehensibility (high vs. low), defendant status (individual vs. corporate), and account (concession, excuse, justification or refusal) in a factorial design. I also included four control groups in which the defendant stipulated liability. In all other conditions, participants read that a jury had found the defendant negligent. Only defendant reprehensibility influenced punitive awards. Both plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility influenced compensatory awards. When individuals offered justifications and when corporations offered excuses, jurors awarded lower compensatory awards against low reprehensibility defendants than against high reprehensibility defendants. Negligence stipulations led to lower damage awards for individuals than for corporations. Additionally, concessions tended to produce lower awards when combined with a stipulation of negligence as opposed to a jury decision. These findings support the hypothesis that in cases in which the defendant is clearly negligent, circumstances exist in which stipulating negligence and offering an apologetic account will lead to reduced damage awards decisions. Results indicate that individual and corporate defendants offering justifications and refusals should first consider the reprehensibility of their actions. In a broader realm, findings demonstrate that the manner in which a jury perceives the explanation given by the defendant is dependent upon defendant characteristics and case-specific factors. ^

Lessing's Nathan der Weise

von Dr. M. Lehmann

Unity in Christ or Pan-Europeanism?:Nathan Söderblom and the ecumenical peace movement in the interwar period

In the summer of 2014 the Swedish Church is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the appointment of Nathan Söderblom as archbishop of Uppsala, and thus head of the Swedish church organisation. As a Lutheran with an enormously broad-minded and broad-reaching approach to ecumenical understanding and community-building, Söderblom shot to prominence in the interwar period not only because of his ecumenical engagement, calling for an evangelical catholicity so stand side by side with the Roman catholic and Orthodox catholic traditions, but also because of his comprehensive secular engagement for peace and understanding between peoples. In the latter context he also acquired a solid reputation as a perhaps less prominent but still noteworthy figure in the history of European integration. This article investigates how, why and to what extent Söderblom’s ecumenical and secular engagements were intertwined. The first part discusses how his biographical and academic background led to such staunch ecumenical positions, while the second part focuses on the secular engagement, which was perceived by Söderblom as necessary to make progress on the ecumenical front in the practical political realities of the 1920s. The final part, comparing and contrasting Söderblom’s views with those of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Calergi and the Pan-European Union, demonstrates why Söderblom’s engagement for Europe had to be limited: unity in Christ is by definition global in nature and therefore cannot be continent-specific.