By Steven K. Smith

Carol J. DeFrances

Patrick A. Langan

BJS Statisticians

 

 John Goerdt

National Center for State Courts

During a 1-year period ending in 1992,

State courts of general jurisdiction in

the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed an estimated 378,000 tort cases

involving 1.4 million plaintiffs and defendants. Individuals suing businesses

accounted for a third of all cases. The

average time courts took to dispose a

tort case was just over 11⁄2 years.

Trial verdicts accounted for 3% of all

tort cases disposed.

These are some of the results from a

study of tort cases in State courts. The

basis is a representative sample of the

75 courts where nearly half of all tort

cases nationwide are handled, making

this the closest that exists to a tort

study national in scope. These survey

data establish a benchmark against

which future tort reforms can be evaluated. Moreover, survey results provide

a baseline that individual courts can

use for comparison.

The sample

The estimated 378,000 tort cases were

disposed from July 1, 1991, to June 30,

1992, in State general jurisdiction

courts. A representative sample of

18,000 tort cases was drawn from court

files in 45 of the Nation's 75 largest

counties. The 45 are located in 21

States (appendix table 1).

 

The sample excluded Federal courts,

which account for about 4% of all tort

cases, and State courts outside the 75

largest counties.1

 Also excluded were

tort cases disposed in States' limited

jurisdiction courts.

Types of tort cases

In tort cases, plaintiffs allege injury,

loss, or damage from negligent 

or intentional acts of the defendants.

The types of cases vary. Over the

1-year period, the two most frequent

kinds disposed were automobile accident cases (60%) and premises liability

cases alleging harm from inadequately

maintained or dangerous property

(17%) (table 1).

Other types of cases included those

that are a primary focus of current tort

reform activity: product liability (3%),

toxic substance (2%), and medical malpractice (5%) cases.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992

Tort Cases in Large Counties

1

Federal tort case jurisdiction is limited to claims

that involve more than $50,000 in damages and 

in which plaintiffs and defendants are from different States. About a third of tort cases disposed 

in Federal courts in 1992 involved product liability.

2

Limited jurisdiction courts have jurisdiction over

cases in which the financial amount at stake is

below a certain threshold.

 The majority of cases disposed were

auto torts (complaints charging damage caused by a motor vehicle).

 Complex cases involving medical

malpractice, product liability, or toxic

substance together made up about

10% of all tort cases.

 About 75% of the cases were disposed through an agreed settlement

or voluntary dismissal; 3% by a trial

verdict.

 Twenty-eight percent of the approximately 378,000 tort cases were uncontested (the defendant did not file

an answer to the complaint). 

 Half the tort cases were disposed

within 14 months. 

 Auto tort cases were settled in a

shorter period than all other cases.

 Tort cases involved primarily individuals suing other individuals. 

 Half of all the tort cases involved

three or more litigants.

 Highlights

April 1995, NCJ-153177
In 92% of tort cases, the plaintiff cited

personal injury as the type of harm 

involved. Property damage was cited 

in 5%. The majority of tort cases 

involving personal injury (64%) or property damage (60%) were auto torts. 

Types of tort case dispositions

The most common method of tort case

disposition was an agreed settlement 

(73%) (table 2). (For definitions of

terms related to torts, see page 6.)

About 10% of the cases were dismissed for lack of prosecution or 

failure to serve the complaint on the 

defendant. 

In the vast majority of tort cases, 

litigants settled the complaint without

going to trial. Therefore, details of tort

settlements are unknown. Very few

systematic data are available regarding

why cases are settled or the cost 

of settlement for either party.

A jury (2%) or bench (1%) trial verdict

disposed relatively few cases. Medical

malpractice claims (7%) were more

likely than product or premises liability,

auto, or toxic substance cases to be

disposed by a jury or bench trial.

Uncontested tort cases 

In 28% of tort cases, the defendant

failed to file an answer to the complaint. Failure to answer in a timely

manner (usually within 30 to 45 days)

gives the plaintiff the right to file 

a motion for a default judgment. Such

uncontested tort cases comprised 81%

of all cases disposed by default 

judgments. Most uncontested cases

were disposed by agreed settlement

(65%) or dismissed for lack of prosecution or failure to serve the complaint 

on the defendant (23%).

2 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Table 1. Types of tort cases 

in State courts in the Nation's 

75 largest counties, 1992

Primary case type Number Percent

All tort cases 378,314 100.0%

Auto 227,515 60.1

Premises liability 65,492 17.3

Product liability 12,857 3.4

Intentional injury 10,879 2.9

Malpractice

Medical 18,452 4.9

Nonmedical 6,860 1.8

Slander/libel 3,159 .8

Toxic substance* 6,045 1.6

Unknown tort 4,708 1.2

Other negligence 22,347 5.9

Note: See page 6 for a detailed description of

case types. Detail may not sum to 100% because of rounding.

*Toxic substance cases, a type of product liability case, were collected and reported as a

separate category.

Legal counsel

Most tort litigants had an attorney

represent them; 3% of the cases 

involved a pro se litigant who represented himself or herself. 

In 1993 domestic relations cases (for

example, divorce and child custody) 

accounted for about 4 in 10 civil filings

in the courts of general jurisdiction,

according to the most complete data

source covering 29 States. 

The number of tort case filings has remained stable since 1986, according

to the most extensive existing data

from 22 States. Federal tort caseloads have also remained fairly

constant over the past 8 years. The

consistent level in State courts may

be related to the various reforms that

many States have implemented to

some extent since 1984. One common change has been to abolish or

modify the liability that makes multiple

defendants financially accountable for

the entire judgment ("joint and several" liability). Another

factor may have been

the trend away from

costly formal litigation

toward compulsory arbitration. To achieve

speed in complex or

technical cases, some

businesses are also

turning to private judging (for example, retaining a retired judge

to resolve a dispute).

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Tort filings in State and Federal district courts 

Federal

State

Sources: Court Statistics Project, National Center for State 

Courts, 1995. Data on number of tort cases commenced in

Federal district court came from the Annual Reports of the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

States include: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, ID,

KS, ME, MD, MI, MN, NC, ND, OH, PR, TN, TX, UT, WA.

Case type Total Percent

Total number 5,929,537 100%

Domestic relations 2,448,150 41

Small claims 732,977 12

Contracts 639,783 11

Torts 572,041 10

Real property rights 439,947 7

Estates 606,722 10

Mental health 90,608 2

Civil appeals 93,339 2

Other 305,970 5

States include: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, ID,

IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NJ, NM,

NY, ND, OH, OR, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY.

Source: Court Statistics Project, National Center

for State Courts, 1995.

Torts contributed about 10%

of all civil case filings in general 

jurisdiction courts in 29 States,

1993

Tort filings
Case processing time 

Mean case processing time from filing

to disposition was 19.3 months, and the

median was 13.7 months (table 3).

Within 1 year, 44% of all tort cases

were disposed, and within 2 years,

74%.

Case processing was most rapid for

auto torts (median of 1 year). One reason for the relatively short processing time was that auto tort cases were

among the types with the fewest number of litigants (median of 3). Also,

compared to all other types, auto torts

were the most likely to have an individual (rather than a business, hospital or

government agency) as the defendant.

Product liability and medical malpractice cases had a mean processing time

of about 2 years. Toxic substance

cases took on average 3.5 years from

filing to disposition.

 Tort Cases in Large Counties 3

Table 3. Case processing time, by selected types of tort cases in the Nation's 75 largest counties, 1992

Case processing time for tort cases

Percent of tort cases disposed

Selected 

case type

Number 

of cases

Mean

(months)

Median

(months)

Less than

1 year

1 year to

less than 

2 years

2 years to

less than 

3 years

3 years to

less than 

4 years

4 or

more years

All tort cases 378,313 19.3 mo 13.7 mo 43.7% 30.1% 12.2% 5.8% 8.2%

Auto 227,515 16.7 12.4 48.4 31.0 10.8 4.6 5.3

Premises liability 65,492 22.0 16.5 34.8 31.2 15.9 8.4 9.7

Product liability 12,857 25.0 17.2 38.0 26.0 13.6 5.2 17.2

Medical malpractice 18,452 26.4 20.5 27.5 29.4 17.7 9.4 16.0

Toxic substance 6,045 36.5 29.4 36.5 8.9 10.5 11.3 32.7

Other* 47,952 21.2 14.5 42.0 28.5 11.7 6.2 11.6

Note: Differences in case processing time among nonauto 

cases were not statistically significant. Detail may not 

sum to 100% because of rounding.

*Includes nonmedical malpractice, intentional injury, 

slander/libel, and torts of unknown specificity.

Table 2. Types of civil judgment, by selected types of tort cases in the Nation's 75 largest counties, 1992

Percent of cases, by type of judgment

Selected 

case type Total

Trial

verdict

Agreed

settlementa

Summary

judgment

Default

judgment Dismissedb

Arbitration

award Transfer

Other

dispositionc

All tort cases 100% 2.9% 73.4% 1.7% 3.1% 9.5% 3.5% 5.1% .7%

Auto 100 2.0 74.6 1.0 4.2 9.4 4.0 4.4 .5

Premises liability 100 3.8 76.1 2.3 .9 7.4 3.3 4.8 1.3

Product liability 100 3.3 76.5 4.5 .5 6.0 2.7 6.1 .3

Intentional injury 100 4.1 65.8 2.6 3.6 17.5 2.8 3.4 .3

Malpractice

Medical 100 6.9 69.4 3.3 .8 12.9 1.4 3.5 1.8

Nonmedical 100 4.8 66.9 2.5 3.9 14.4 2.8 3.8 .8

Toxic substance 100 3.0 83.2 2.7 0 2.3 .2 4.2 4.2

Note: Data on case type and type of judgment were available 

for 99.8% of all cases. Zero indicates no cases in the sample. 

Detail may not sum to 100% because of rounding.

a

Includes voluntary dismissal. 

b

Includes those dismissed for lack of prosecution or failure 

to serve the complaint on the defendant. 

c

Includes directed verdict and cases that were settled after 

a trial started or after a jury or bench verdict was entered.
Tort cases disposed by a jury or bench

trial had a median case processing

time of nearly 2 years (table 4).

The longest processing time for a sampled case was 14 years and 5 months.

This case of negligence involved 3 individuals who named 14 defendants

(individuals, businesses, and a government agency). It was disposed by an

agreed settlement.

Types of litigants: plaintiffs

Because tort litigation primarily involves

claims or damages related to

personal injury, the vast majority (94%)

of cases had an individual as the plaintiff (table 5). Businesses were the

plaintiff in 6% of all tort cases, and hospitals and government agencies each

were in less than 1%. Businesses

were the plaintiff in 21% of nonmedical

professional malpractice cases, 15% of

slander libel cases, and 12% of product

liability cases. 

Types of litigants: defendants 

The composition of defendants in tort

cases differed from that of the plaintiffs.

While in more than 9 in 10 tort cases

the plaintiff was an individual, half the

cases had an individual as the

defendant. Approximately 40% of 

the tort cases had a business as the

defendant. 

A majority (70%) of auto cases named

an individual as the defendant. In

three-quarters or more of premises 

liability cases (75%), product liability

cases (93%), and toxic substance

cases (96%), a business was the 

defendant. Among medical malpractice

cases, hospitals comprised 72% of the

defendants. 

4 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Table 4. Case processing time, by types 

of tort disposition in the Nation's 

75 largest counties, 1992

Tort cases

Disposition

type

Number 

of cases

Case processing

time (months)

Percent Mean Median

All tort cases 377,422 100.0% 19.3 mo 13.7 mo

Judgment

Agreed 277,168 73.4 18.2 13.3

Default 11,799 3.1 11.3 6.9

Summary 6,504 1.7 23.7 18.9

Dismissed 35,604 9.4 27.0 16.8

Transfer 19,295 5.1 17.5 11.4

Arbitration award 13,161 3.5 15.8 11.9

Trial

Bench 2,211 .6 31.0 22.4

Jury 8,852 2.3 29.5 24.2

Other* 2,828 .7 37.7 32.7

Note: Data on disposition type and case processing time 

were available for 99.8% of all cases. Detail may not sum 

to 100% because of rounding.

*Includes directed verdict and cases that were settled

after a trial started or after a jury or bench verdict was entered.

Table 5. Types of plaintiffs or defendants, by types of tort

cases in the Nation's 75 largest counties, 1992

Plaintiffs

Selected 

case type Total Individual

Government Businessa Hospitalb

All tort cases 100% 93.6% .3% 6.0% .1%

Auto 100 94.2 .3 5.4 0 

Premises liability 100 96.5 .2 3.2 0 

Product liability 100 86.8 .9 12.3 0 

Intentional injury 100 94.9 .1 5.0 .1

Malpractice

Medical 100 99.5 0 .5 0 

Nonmedical 100 77.0 1.3 20.6 1.0

Slander/libel 100 84.2 .6 15.2 0 

Toxic substance 100 97.3 .7 2.0 0 

Defendants

All tort cases 100% 50.5% 5.4% 39.6% 4.6%

Auto 100 69.8 3.9 25.9 .4

Premises liability 100 13.5 9.7 74.8 2.0

Product liability 100 .4 1.0 93.2 5.3

Intentional injury 100 44.4 16.0 38.1 1.4

Malpractice

Medical 100 26.5 1.3 .5 71.8

Nonmedical 100 37.8 4.0 53.4 4.8

Slander/libel 100 50.1 4.9 43.9 1.1

Toxic substance 100 3.6 .1 96.3 0 

Note: Each case, regardless of number or types of plaintiffs, was given one plaintiff

designation from the following hierarchy: hospital, business, government, or individual.

Similarly, each was also given a single defendant designation. A case with multiple

types of plaintiffs or defendants was assigned the designation of whichever type appears first in the above hierarchy. For example, any case involving a hospital defendant is categorized as a hospital even if there were also business, individual, or government defendants in the case. Zero indicates no cases in the sample. Detail may not

sum to 100% because of rounding.

a

Includes insurance companies and other businesses and other organizations.

b

Includes medical companies.
Who sues whom?

The most common type of tort case involved an individual suing an individual

(47% of all torts) (table 6). The next

most common type was an individual

suing a business (37%). About 5%

were cases in which an individual sued

a government agency or hospital.

Auto torts were primarily individual 

versus individual; medical malpractice

cases, individual versus hospital; and

toxic substance and product liability

cases, individual versus business. 

County specific data

The volume and composition of tort

cases disposed, their average case

processing time, and the types of litigants involved varied across the individual State courts sampled in this

project (appendix tables 1-3). 

Many factors can contribute to these

differences, including the types of commercial enterprises located in the 

jurisdiction and the demographic 

characteristics of the residents. The

presence of no-fault auto insurance

and laws addressing the plaintiff's role

in contributory negligence can also affect tort caseload. States vary in the

 Tort Cases in Large Counties 5

Trial verdicts

Few tort cases go to jury 

or bench trial for disposition.

In the 3% of cases which

did receive a trial verdict,

the plaintiff was the winner

in about half the cases.

Among types of cases with

sufficient data to permit estimation, outcome varied

considerably by type of

case. Physicians, hospitals,

and other medical service

defendants won 74% of

medical malpractice cases,

but plaintiffs in automobile

accident cases won 60% 

of the cases. 

Percent of trial verdicts in favor 

of plaintiffs or defendants

Winner

All 

cases* Auto

Medical

malpractice

Premises

liability

Plaintiff 53% 60% 26% 52%

Defendant 45 36 74 47

Mixed 2 5 0 1

Number 

of cases 9,553 4,162 1,148 2,212

Note: Data were available for 86.4% of tort cases that went to

trial. Zero indicates no cases in the sample. Detail may not sum

to 100% because of rounding.

*Includes product liability, toxic substance, and intentional injury

cases that could not be estimated separately because of too few

sample cases. 

Table 6. Pairings of primary litigants in tort cases, 1992 

Plaintiff versus All tort cases Auto

 Medical 

 malpractice Toxic substancea Product liability Premises liability

primary

defendant

Number

of cases Percent

Number 

of cases Percent

Number

of cases Percent

Number

of cases Percent

Number

of cases Percent

Number

of cases Percent

All tort cases 376,789 100.0% 226,596 100.0% 18,388 100.0% 5,938 100.0% 12,804 100.0% 65,329 100.0%

Individual

versus:

Individual 176,815 46.9% 147,905 65.3% 4,814 26.2% 96 1.6% 0 0 8,447 12.9%

Government 19,483 5.2 8,533 3.8 232 1.3 8 .1 134 1.0 6,290 9.6

Businessb 139,156 36.9 56,324 24.9 84 .5 5,661 95.3 10,310 80.5 46,986 71.9

Hospitalc 17,103 4.5 808 .4 13,172 71.6 0 0 682 5.3 1,320 2.0

Individual and 

nonindividual versus:

Individual 5,005 1.3% 4,219 1.9% 11 .1% 0 0 0 0 89 .1%

Government 325 .1 222 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0

Businessb 4,455 1.2 1,589 .7 0 0 74 1.2 446 3.5 1,162 1.8

Hospitalc 131 0 22 0 76 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nonindividual

versus:

Individual 7,527 2.0% 5,790 2.6% 0 0 15 .2% 0 0 153 .2%

Government 444 .1 137 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 .1

Businessb 6,326 1.7 1,048 .5 0 0 85 1.4 1,231 9.6 811 1.2

Hospitalc 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Note: Data on litigant pairings were available for 99.6% of all

cases. See note on table 5. Zero indicates no cases in the 

sample. Detail may not sum to 100% because of rounding.

a

Includes primarily asbestos cases, but also lead poisoning 

damages arising from the illegal dumping of hazardous waste. 

b

Includes "other organizations."

c

Includes medical companies.

Multiple plaintiffs or defendants

The estimated 378,000 tort cases

disposed in 1992 involved approximately 1.4 million litigants. The median number of litigants per case

was 3. On average, toxic substance (primarily asbestos) cases

had 14 litigants per case, more 

than any other tort cases.

However, for toxic cases involving

multiple plaintiffs, the manner of filing could differ among jurisdictions.

For example, a toxic substance

case in Dade County, Fla., involved

more than 60 individual plaintiffs,

each filing separate complaints. 

By contrast, a toxic substance case

in Alameda County, Calif., which 

involved nearly 200 plaintiffs, was

consolidated as a single case.
minimum amount of money that must

be involved for a civil case to be filed 

in general jurisdiction courts. The 

threshold can range from $25,000 in

California to $2,000 in Connecticut.

Methodology

Sample

The Civil Trial Court Network Project

sample is a 2-stage stratified sample

with 45 of the 75 most populous counties selected at the first stage. The 

75 counties were divided into 4 strata

based on aggregate civil disposition

data for 1990 obtained through telephone interviews with court staffs

in the general jurisdiction trial courts. 

For stratum 1 (14 counties with the

largest number of civil case dispositions), every county was selected.

Stratum 2 consisted of 15 counties,

with 12 chosen randomly. From 

stratum 3, 10 of the 20 counties were

selected. From stratum 4, 9 of the 26

counties were included. 

At the second stage, either an interval

or a random sample of 400-450 tort

cases disposed between July 1, 1991,

and June 30, 1992, was selected within

the State general jurisdiction trial court

of each county. Data on 18,178 tort

cases were collected. 

The estimate that the Nation's 75 

largest counties comprise half of the

Nation's tort caseload is derived from

comparing the relationship between

jurisdiction population size and tort

caseload in the 16 States with 

available data. 

Data recording and

unobtainable information 

For each sampled case, a standard

coding form was manually completed

by staff on-site to record information

about the litigants, case type, disposition type, processing time, and case

outcome. 

Information for which data were not

available included the cost of litigation

for the parties involved, as well as for

others, and the results of settlement. 

Tort case type definitions

Torts  Claims arising from personal

injury or property damage caused by

the negligent or intentional act of another person or business.

Specific tort case types include automobile accident; premises liability 

(injury caused by the dangerous condition of residential or commercial property); medical malpractice (by doctor,

dentist, or medical professional); other

professional malpractice (as by engineers or architects); product liability (injury or damage caused by defective

products); toxic substance (injury

caused by toxic substances, primarily

asbestos in this study); libel/slander (injury to reputation); intentional tort (such

as vandalism and intentional personal

injury); and other negligent acts. 

Tort case disposition definitions

Default judgment Occurs when 

a litigant has failed to file an answer 

to a complaint or failed to appear at 

a scheduled hearing.

Dismissal for lack of service or

prosecution Failure to obtain legal

service of the complaint can lead to a

dismissal after a stated period; most

courts can also dismiss a case for the

plaintiff's failure to prosecute after a

case has been inactive for 18 to 24

months.

Summary judgment Entered by 

a judge after considering evidence submitted by both parties and determining

that no controversy exists about the

facts in the case; the only issue is application of the law to the facts. 

Other dispositions  Includes cases

settled after a jury or bench trial

started, settled after a jury or bench

trial verdict was entered, or concluded

with a directed verdict (a verdict that

the jury returned at the direction of the

court or that the court entered on the

record after dismissal of the jury because the court found the evidence 

to be insufficient to support the jury's

decision).

Arbitration award  Typically entered

without appeal in jurisdictions with arbitration programs associated with the

court. 

Agreed settlement/voluntary 

dismissal  Primarily cases settled

and dismissed and some cases voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs without a

settlement. Types of dismissals were

not identified by many courts; it could

also include dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. 

Trial verdict  Rendered by jury 

or bench (judge) trial.

Sampling error

Since the data in this report came from

a sample, a sampling error (standard

error) is associated with each reported

number. In general, if the difference

between two numbers is greater than

twice the standard error for that difference, there is 95% confidence of a real

difference and that the apparent difference is not simply the result of using a

sample rather than the entire population. All differences discussed in this

report were statistically significant at or

above the 95% confidence level. The

75 counties' estimate of 378,000 torts

had a coefficient of variation of 4%.

Variation took into account the survey

sample design features.

6 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Steven K. Smith, Carol J. DeFrances,

Patrick A. Langan, and John Goerdt,

project director for the Civil Trial Court

Network, National Center for State

Courts (NCSC), wrote this report.

Carma Hogue at the Bureau of the

Census designed the sample. Data

collection was carried out by the

NCSC, the Bureau of the Census (under the direction of Stephanie Brown),

and Mark Cunniff of the National Association of Criminal Justice Planners.

Also Brian Ostrom, David Rottman,

and Neil LaFountain of NCSC assisted in this project. Tom Hester and

Priscilla Middleton edited the report.

Marilyn Marbrook, assisted by Jayne

Robinson and Yvonne Boston, administered production.

April 1995, NCJ-153177
 Tort Cases in Large Counties 7

Appendix table 1. Types of tort cases disposed in State courts, by sampled counties, 1992

Total tort cases

 per 100,000 

 population

 

1992

 population

 All

 torts 

Premises

liability

 

Product

liability

Medical 

malpractice

 

Toxic 

County Auto substance

Maricopa, AZ 2,209,567 449 9,914 7,772 1,085 147 29 0

Pima, AZ 690,202 485 3,346 2,387 411 48 65 8

Alameda, CA 1,307,572 249 3,258 1,731 467 85 204 76

Contra Costa, CA 840,585 294 2,469 1,456 408 70 120 35

Fresno, CA 705,613 335 2,364 1,528 267 108 118 15

Los Angeles, CAa 3,485,398 242 21,954 16,436 2,529 172 977 0

Orange, CA 2,484,789 736 18,297 12,515 2,415 512 476 37

San Bernadino, CA 1,534,343 494 7,583 4,682 1,600 135 299 15

San Francisco, CA 728,921 476 3,467 1,924 572 95 147 191

Santa Clara, CA 1,528,527 337 5,148 3,389 912 55 129 0

Ventura, CA 686,560 279 1,917 1,300 328 35 43 0

Fairfield, CTb 267,099 862 2,303 1,512 344 108 59 43

Hartford, CTb 858,831 487 4,184 3,018 627 39 87 19

Dade, FL 2,007,972 355 7,122 3,461 849 216 216 1,315

Orange, FL 714,579 238 1,700 983 439 33 62 0

Palm Beach, FL 900,655 466 4,194 2,668 608 136 149 0

Fulton, GA 665,765 221 1,470 762 223 89 89 9

Honolulu, HI 863,117 208 1,795 1,133 301 42 38 59

Cook, IL 5,139,341 400 20,573 11,021 5,143 908 1,297 43

DuPage, IL 816,116 231 1,884 1,226 293 29 87 10

Marion, IN 812,835 212 1,725 1,121 199 49 119 0

Jefferson, KY 670,837 230 1,543 939 239 46 137 8

Essex, MA 669,984 275 1,843 992 292 64 77 37

Middlesex, MA 1,394,408 411 5,735 2,723 1,410 263 263 28

Norfolk, MA 620,957 279 1,733 903 322 59 87 6

Suffolk, MA 639,192 786 5,023 2,012 1,389 143 454 13

Worcester, MA 708,164 236 1,673 911 311 77 108 9

Oakland, MI 1,118,611 472 5,279 2,359 941 334 548 0

Wayne, MI 2,096,179 799 16,739 7,370 2,930 888 1,865 355

Hennepin, MN 1,041,332 239 2,485 1,390 288 112 183 0

St. Louis, MO 1,000,690 168 1,684 994 211 57 195 0

Bergen, NJ 834,983 818 6,830 4,292 1,507 180 180 16

Essex, NJ 773,420 1,363 10,544 7,651 2,439 120 120 24

Middlesex, NJ 684,456 1,034 7,080 4,840 1,308 229 229 180

New York, NY 1,489,066 614 9,150 3,225 3,566 52 1,049 577

Cuyahoga, OH 1,411,209 679 9,589 5,856 1,074 946 665 51

Franklin, OH 992,095 398 3,951 2,182 513 472 191 101

Allegheny, PA 1,334,396 407 5,430 3,058 1,279 218 343 187

Philadelphia, PA 1,552,572 1,178 18,283 10,970 3,456 150 551 852

Bexar, TX 1,233,096 250 3,087 1,898 681 125 153 19

Dallas, TX 1,913,395 335 6,411 3,213 1,045 277 323 61

Harris, TX 2,971,755 386 11,483 5,709 2,854 427 558 164

Fairfax, VA 877,531 384 3,370 2,597 224 56 112 11

King, WA 1,557,537 325 5,057 3,249 532 118 224 71

Milwaukee, WI 951,884 340 3,234 2,393 477 61 104 0

a

1992 population figure includes only the central district of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Los Angeles suburban courts are not included.

b

Population figures for Fairfield and Hartford Counties are 1990 estimations for the population served

by the Fairfield and Hartford/New Britain judicial districts.

Source of 1992 population: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1994.
8 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

Appendix table 2. Case processing time for tort cases in State courts, 

by sampled counties, 1992

County

Mean

(months)

Less

than

1 year

1 year to 

less than 

2 years

2 years to

less than

3 years

3 years to

 less than

4 years

4 or

more

years

Maricopa, AZ 11 mo 55% 40% 4% 1% 0%

Pima, AZ 17 41 41 13 4 1

Alameda, CA 22 39 28 15 4 14

Contra Costa, CA 15 62 24 4 3 7

Fresno, CA 42 27 23 5 3 42

Los Angeles, CA* 12 49 45 5 2 0

Orange, CA 21 44 23 14 9 10

San Bernadino, CA 30 29 16 11 25 19

San Francisco, CA 21 36 27 17 15 6

Santa Clara, CA 20 38 29 16 9 8

Ventura, CA 22 34 28 18 10 11

Fairfield, CT 23 35 27 13 9 15

Hartford, CT 19 40 29 19 8 4

Dade, FL 13 56 30 9 3 2

Orange, FL 15 50 34 10 3 3

Palm Beach, FL 14 51 36 9 4 0

Fulton, GA 13 58 29 10 2 2

Honolulu, HI 16 47 33 14 5 1

Cook, IL 34 25 16 22 5 33

DuPage, IL 16 38 43 16 2 1

Marion, IN 14 53 28 13 6 1

Jefferson, KY 14 50 34 12 3 0

Essex, MA 28 31 29 14 5 21

Middlesex, MA 27 29 32 16 6 18

Norfolk, MA 19 46 30 7 5 11

Suffolk, MA 22 35 37 9 7 12

Worcester, MA 24 40 26 19 4 12

Oakland, MI 12 68 26 4 1 0

Wayne, MI 12 59 34 6 2 0

Hennepin, MN 13 51 38 8 1 1

St. Louis, MO 21 29 32 26 9 3

Bergen, NJ 20 24 41 28 6 1

Essex, NJ 21 29 38 13 17 2

Middlesex, NJ 19 28 42 21 7 2

New York, NY 25 28 30 20 10 13

Cuyahoga, OH 12 64 27 7 1 1

Franklin, OH 16 51 33 9 2 6

Allegheny, PA 20 47 24 13 6 11

Philadelphia, PA 24 48 17 11 5 19

Bexar, TX 18 30 46 17 4 3

Dallas, TX 13 57 30 9 3 1

Harris, TX 23 28 34 21 8 9

Fairfax, VA 16 43 37 15 3 2

King, WA 13 56 36 5 1 2

Milwaukee, WI 10 66 24 7 2 1

Note: Zero indicates no cases in the sample. Detail may not sum

to 100% because of rounding.

*Includes only the central district of the Los Angeles County Superior

Court. Los Angeles suburban courts are not included.
 Tort Cases in Large Counties 9

Appendix table 3. Primary plaintiff or defendant in tort cases in State courts, 

by sampled counties, 1992

Primary plaintiffa Primary defendanta

County Individual Government Businessb Hospital Individual Government Businessb Hospital

Maricopa, AZ 84% 2% 14% 0% 71% 6% 23% 1%

Pima, AZ 94 0 6 0 70 4 24 2

Alameda, CA 94 0 6 0 51 7 37 5

Contra Costa, CA 97 0 2 0 50 6 39 5

Fresno, CA 94 1 5 0 59 6 32 3

Los Angeles, CAc 99 0 1 0 61 4 30 5

Orange, CA 98 0 1 0 58 3 35 4

San Bernadino, CA 97 0 3 0 50 7 40 3

San Francisco, CA 96 0 3 0 45 7 44 3

Santa Clara, CA 97 0 3 0 64 4 30 2

Ventura, CA 95 1 4 0 60 5 33 2

Fairfield, CT 95 0 5 0 61 5 33 2

Hartford, CT 78 0 22 0 61 0 37 2

Dade, FL 92 0 8 0 36 3 59 2

Orange, FL 89 0 11 0 43 2 51 3

Palm Beach, FL 90 0 9 0 44 3 49 4

Fulton, GA 96 0 4 0 35 5 55 5

Honolulu, HI 95 0 4 0 53 5 41 1

Cook, IL 93 0 7 0 44 10 40 6

DuPage, IL 96 0 3 0 59 1 35 5

Marion, IN 94 0 6 0 59 3 32 6

Jefferson, KY 72 1 27 0 47 4 45 4

Essex, MA 97 0 3 0 54 6 37 3

Middlesex, MA 97 0 3 0 46 5 46 3

Norfolk, MA 95 0 5 0 49 5 43 3

Suffolk, MA 92 0 8 0 30 11 53 6

Worcester, MA 95 0 4 0 50 3 42 4

Oakland, MI 97 0 3 0 37 2 51 9

Wayne, MI 97 0 3 0 35 10 43 12

Hennepin, MN 95 0 5 0 50 5 38 7

St. Louis, MO 97 0 3 0 61 1 28 9

Bergen, NJ 93 0 6 0 53 3 42 2

Essex, NJ 96 0 4 0 47 4 47 2

Middlesex, NJ 97 0 3 0 59 4 36 1

New York, NY 96 0 4 0 22 13 55 10

Cuyahoga, OH 85 1 13 1 55 5 33 7

Franklin, OH 93 0 7 0 56 5 35 4

Allegheny, PA 94 0 6 0 50 2 44 5

Philadelphia, PA 98 0 2 0 45 13 38 3

Bexar, TX 98 0 2 0 45 3 46 6

Dallas, TX 89 0 11 0 48 2 45 4

Harris, TX 95 1 4 0 37 3 55 5

Fairfax, VA 96 0 4 0 70 1 27 2

King, WA 93 1 6 0 61 6 29 4

Milwaukee, WI 55 4 40 1 40 1 54 5

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Zero 

indicates no cases in the sample.

a

See note on table 5.

b

Includes insurance companies, corporations, and "other organizations."

c

Includes only the central district of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Los Angeles suburban courts are not included.