Many critics of the tort system have accused juries of assessing larger awards against defendants perceived to have the ability to pay. Juries are said to be particularly prone to go after the 'deep pockets' of doctors in medical malpractice cases as compared to defendants found negligent in automobile accidents. This hypothesis was put to a test in an experiment that manipulated cause of the injury (medical malpractice versus negligent driving) and degree of possible contributing responsibility by the plaintiff (mandatory versus elective surgery and plaintiff as another driver or as a passenger). Responsibility ascriptions to the plaintiff differed across conditions, but jurors did not differentially award pain and suffering damages across conditions.