Title
Framing Choice between Cash and the Courthouse: Experiences with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund
Abstract
In this paper I report the results of a quantitative and qualitative empirical study of how those who were injured or lost a family member in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks evaluated the tradeoff between a cash payment - available through the Victim Compensation Fund - and the pursuit of litigation. Responses make it clear that potential plaintiffs saw much more at stake than monetary compensation and that the choice to forego litigation required the sacrifice of important non-monetary, civic, values: obtaining and publicizing information about what happened, prompting public findings of accountability for those responsible, and participating in the process of ensuring that there would be responsive change to what was learned about how the attacks and deaths happened. The results shed light on the framing component of the transformation of disputes, and in particular on how potential litigants see the decision to sue, or not, as a decision as much or more about how they understand their relationship to their community and their responsibilities as a citizen as how they evaluate monetary considerations.
Disciplines
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Economics | Law and Economics | Public Law and Legal Theory
Date of this Version
March 2008
Recommended Citation
Gillian K. Hadfield, "Framing Choice between Cash and the Courthouse: Experiences with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund" (March 2008). University of Southern California Law and Economics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 77.
http://law.bepress.com/usclwps-lewps/art77
Included in
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Economics Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons