Database of State Tort Law Reforms (3rd), 1980-2008

This data collection contains two Excel files that code ten reforms found in the Database of State Tort Law Reforms (DSTLR 3rd). The DSTLR (3rd) contains the most detailed, complete, and comprehensive legal dataset of the most prevalent tort reforms enacted or revised in all 50 states and the District of Columbia between 1980 and 2008. For each reform, the DSTLR (3rd) records the effective date, a short description of the reform, whether or not the jury is allowed to know about the reform, whether the reform was upheld or struck down by the states' courts, as well as whether it was amended by the state legislator. One of the Excel files codes the DSTLR (3rd). The other Excel file, DSTLR 3rd (clever), turns off reforms for various reasons, such as the caps being too high to bind. A Word document explains what distinguishes the DSTLR 3rd (clever) Excel file from the regular DSTLR (3rd) Excel file. The Excel files code the state tort reforms for non-wrongful-death medical malpractice related laws based on the DSTLR (3rd). However, users of the file should be aware that there are many legitimate ways to code the data. Specifically, users should be aware that: (1) If the Avraham, Database of State Tort Law Reforms (3rd) effective date of the reform was on or after July 1st, it was coded as belonging to the following year. (The rationale being that for most of the calendar year in which it was enacted the reform did not apply). (2) Similarly, if a reform was struck down on or after July 1st, it was coded as still active in that year. (The rationale being that for most of the calendar year in which it was struck down the reform did apply). (3) Reforms which simply codified pre-existing common law were not coded. (4) While reforms come in many flavors, the file collapses them into a single zero or one dummy variable. Thus, there is no distinction between different levels of caps, different variations of the joint and several liability reform, etc. (5) The only exception to the previous rule is with respect to periodic payment reforms which was coded in the following way. Zero means no reform existed in that year. A reform which granted courts the discretion of whether or not to apply periodic payments is coded as one. A reform which required courts to apply periodic payments is coded as two.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30409.v1