Heaton — Volume 63, Issue 5

Victim compensation funds (VCFs) have become ubiquitous in the policy landscape following mass casualty events like 9/11, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. This empirical study examines whether VCFs substitute for or complement tort litigation using survey data from 1,558 respondents exposed to a hypothetical mass shooting scenario. The authors experimentally vary whether a VCF exists, the amount of compensation provided, and the economic loss to isolate causal effects on tort litigation decisions. Key findings include: litigation likelihood decreases when a VCF provides compensation even without waiving litigation rights; compensation adequacy matters relative to economic loss rather than absolute amounts; and substantial portions of the population pursue suits despite full compensation. Qualitative data reveals that beyond compensation, factors such as accountability, punishment of responsible parties, and concern about latent injuries motivate litigation. The study demonstrates that VCFs are imperfect substitutes for litigation because victims view tort recovery as serving multiple functions beyond financial compensation.

Topics: Tort · Civil Rights

Keywords: victim compensation funds · mass violence · tort litigation · 9/11 Fund · compensation adequacy