Contingency fees make personal injury the main exception to one-shotters avoiding litigation

Evidence

OS versus RP It is relatively rare for a one-shotter to sue a repeat player. The various factors discussed earlier—the adverse personal consequences of suing, the costs of litigation, and uncertainty about its outcome—deter many one-shotters from filing suit. The sole exception to this is personal injury cases. Because attorneys take such cases on a contingent basis—that is, their fee is a percentage of the plaintiff’s award—one-shotters need not bear the financial costs of litigation. They are therefore more likely to sue. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1114

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘contingent basis’ fees as a percentage of the plaintiff’s award, a key mechanism in civil litigation financing.
• XREF: connects to: Attorneys treat contingent fee cases as a risk-and-reward portfolio. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 743; Litigation costs deter even disputants with legitimate grievances — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1066; Contingency fees are the main reason individual plaintiffs can sue repeat players. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2265 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Contingency fees are the main reason individual plaintiffs can sue repeat players. #corroborates (0.95) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2265
• Contingent fees dominate accident and product-injury civil litigation #exemplifies (0.85)
• Without contingent fees, ordinary citizens with real injuries would often not sue. #corroborates (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1151
• Contingency work clusters in personal-injury cases where liability is likely but damages uncertain. #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1147