Legal damages for losses of chances
AbstractTraditionally, damages for torts have been awarded on an all-or-nothing basis. In malpractice suits, however, a growing number of courts are holding doctors liable for negligent acts that reduces a patient's chance of survival, even if the patient's chances for recovery have already been less than 50%. For lack of a general principle, a disparate variety of loss of chance rules seems in use. To provide some more systematic guidance, the present paper proposes to look directly at the interaction between the injurer's act and a random move of nature that captures the uncertainty. For any given move of nature, damages are still awarded on an all-or-nothing basis. If however, for lack of observability, moves of nature cannot sufficiently be distinguished, averages of correct damages over observable events are taken. While the scheme aims at compensatory goals of tort law, as a by-product, it also generates efficient precaution incentives provided that due care standards obey the Hand Formula.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Law and Economics.
Volume (Year): 29 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle
Probabilistic evidence Loss of a chance Proportional damages;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kahan, Marcel, 1989. "Causation and Incentives to Take Care under the Negligence Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 427-47, June.
- Urs Schweizer, 2005. "The Pure Theory of Multilateral Obligations," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 239-, June.
- R. Myerson., 2010.
"Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory,"
N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 6.
- Roger B. Myerson, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1067-1082, September.
- Shavell, Steven, 1985.
"Uncertainty over Causation and the Determination of Civil Liability,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(3), pages 587-609, October.
- Steven Shavell, 1983. "Uncertainty Over Causation and the Determination of Civil Liability," NBER Working Papers 1219, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Schweizer, Urs, 2005. "Law and Economics of Obligations," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 209-228, June.
- Stremitzer, Alexander & Tabbach, Avraham, 2009.
"Insolvency and Biased Standards - The Case for Proportional Liability,"
Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems
289, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Stremitzer, Alexander & Tabbach, Avraham, 2009. "Insolvency and Biased Standards--The Case for Proportional Liability," Working Papers 75r, Yale University, Department of Economics.
- Stremitzer, Alexander & Tabbach, Avraham, 2009. "Insolvency and Biased Standards--The Case for Proportional Liability," Working Papers 75, Yale University, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.