Legal penalties and liability insurance seem to have counteracting effects on the incentives of a potential injurer to take due care. However, if legal penalties are set efficiently and implemented perfectly, unrestricted access to insurance can be optimal. In contrast, if the standards of guilt assessment are uncertain, the size of the legal penalties may act as a spur to litigation. Therefore, the penalties required to maintain incentives when access to insurance is unlimited may provoke too much litigation, and as a consequence, the costs of ensuring due care may decline when insurance is restricted by mandate.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Volume (Year): 22 (1991) Issue (Month): 2 (Summer) Pages: 218-231 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)
Did you know? Citation analysis on IDEAS includes online papers that are freely accessible and whose text could be automatically analyzed, currently about 210000 papers.