The potential uses-and misuses-of psychiatric genetic evidence in litigation concerning defendants' responsibility for behavior has, to date, mostly focused on criminal justice. Yet the introduction of psychiatric genetic evidence in tort litigation raises old and new legal and social questions that merit consideration. We conducted a vignette-based survey of state trial court judges (n = 465) and potential jurors (n = 2131) to assess how psychiatric genetic evidence may affect views on civil responsibility and related decisions. Psychiatric genetic evidence had limited impact on judicial decisions, but increased perceptions of the subject's contractual incapabilities. Differences in judges' and jurors' views are highlighted, indicating tension between public sentiments and existing legal doctrine that disallows consideration of a person's psychiatric condition in assessing civil liability. Unexpectedly, jurors' gender impacted all case-related questions-the implications thereof are discussed. Future research can assess the role of education, legal training, and gender differences in judicial decision-making.
