Show simple item record

When 10 Trials are Better than 1000: An Evidentiary Perspective on Trial Sampling

dc.contributor.authorCheng, Edward K.
dc.identifier.citation160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 955 (2012)en_US
dc.descriptionpublished law review articleen_US
dc.description.abstractIn many mass tort cases, separately trying all individual claims is impractical, and thus a number of trial courts and commentators have explored the use of statistical sampling as a way of efficiently processing claims. Most discussions on the topic, however, implicitly assume that sampling is a “second best” solution: individual trials are preferred for accuracy, and sampling only justified under extraordinary circumstances. This Essay explores whether this assumption is really true. While intuitively one might think that individual trials would be more accurate at estimating liability than extrapolating from a subset of cases, the Essay offers three ways in which the “second best” assumption can be wrong. Under the right conditions, sampling can actually produce more accurate outcomes than individualized adjudication. Specifically, sampling’s advantages in averaging (reducing variability), shrinkage (borrowing strength across cases), and information gathering (through nonrandom sampling), can result in some instances in which ten trials are better than a thousand.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (13 pages)en_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshSampling (Statistics)en_US
dc.subject.lcshTorts -- Casesen_US
dc.subject.lcshTrials -- United Statesen_US
dc.titleWhen 10 Trials are Better than 1000: An Evidentiary Perspective on Trial Samplingen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record