Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between “tort tale,” “total justice,” and “mixed” narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants' views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious—a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.

中文翻译：

---

侵权故事和完全正义：探索对日常工伤侵权索赔的态度

尽管有所缩减，诉讼状况仍然良好。所有这些诉讼都引发了激烈的争论，争论的焦点是诉讼的增加到底代表着正义浪潮的高涨，还是无意义索赔的泛滥。几十年来，侵权法一直是这些争论的中心，处于“侵权故事”、“完全正义”和有关诉讼利弊的“混合”叙述之间的断层线上。在本文中，我们根据这些叙述，通过一项调查实验来探讨人们对工伤索赔的态度。我们发现参与者持有多方面的观点。一方面，他们更倾向于提出索赔，而不是无所事事或向家人寻求帮助，并认为诉讼与向政府提出索赔或聘请律师发送索偿信同样合适。另一方面，侵权故事主题给我们参与者的观点蒙上了微妙的阴影。当被告知索赔人不要无视侵权故事的期望而急于向法院提起诉讼时，我们的参与者认为诉讼更加合理。事实上，诉讼前用尽的补救措施越多，诉讼看起来就越合理，尽管一再否认索赔可能会削弱人们对索赔案情的信心。我们认为，底线是，对诉讼的态度不仅反映了补救措施的选择，还反映了补救措施的使用方式，即使基本索赔是有道理的——这一点可能对从业者和倡导者在权衡索赔选择时有用。以及诉讼和公共沟通策略。