This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

A Neglected Interdependency in Liability Theory

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Hoffmann, Sandra () (Resources for the Future)
Schwartz, Warren
Dharmapala, Dhammika

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The standard economic model of bilateral precaution concludes that (in the absence of uncertainty, misperception, or error) all negligence-based liability rules induce socially optimal behavior by both injurers and victims. This paper generalizes the standard model to consider situations in which one party’s precaution affects not only expected accident loss, but also directly affects the other party’s effort—or cost—of taking precaution. If the injurer’s care affects the victim’s precaution costs (but not vice versa), most of the standard results continue to hold (except for strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence). If the victim’s precaution affects the injurer’s costs of care (but not vice versa), only strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence leads to the social optimum, while the other negligence-based rules lead to suboptimal outcomes. In the general case (where each party’s costs depend on both parties’ levels of precaution), none of the standard liability rules induce socially optimal behavior in both parties. The paper’s other main result concerns the possibility of self-interested, negligent behavior in equilibrium. Under negligence with a defense of contributory negligence, the only equilibrium is in the mixed strategies of both injurer and victim. This involves the parties choosing (with strictly positive probability) to behave negligently, and gives rise to the possibility of successful litigation in equilibrium, even though there is no uncertainty, misperception, or error. The paper concludes by considering the implications of these results for the design of liability rules.

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.

File URL: http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-01-13.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-01-13.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jul 2001
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-13

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.rff.org
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Webmaster).

Related research
Keywords: law and economics; and tort law;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability
K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Emons, Winand, 1990. "Efficient liability rules for an economy with non-identical individuals," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 89-104, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Kahan, Marcel, 1989. "Causation and Incentives to Take Care under the Negligence Rule," Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 427-47, June.
  3. Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 1991. "Regulation and the Law of Torts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 54-58, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Steven Shavell, 1983. "Liability for Harm Versus Regulation of Safety," NBER Working Papers 1218, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Michelle J. White, 1989. "An Empirical Test of the Comparative and Contributory Negligence Rules in Accident Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(3), pages 308-330, Autumn. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Rea, Samuel Jr., 1987. "The economics of comparative negligence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 149-162, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2000. "On the Joint Use of Liability and Safety Regulation," MPRA Paper 12536, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. Ewerhart, Christian & Schmitz, Patrick W., 1998. "Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regulation: Substitutes or Complements? Comment," MPRA Paper 13448, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  9. Arlen, Jennifer H., 1990. "Re-examining liability rules when injurers as well as victims suffer losses," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-239, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Sloan, Frank A. & Reilly, Bridget A. & Schenzler, Christoph M., 1994. "Tort liability versus other approaches for deterring careless driving," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 53-71, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Emons, Winand & Sobel, Joel, 1991. "On the Effectiveness of Liability Rules when Agents Are Not Identical," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 58(2), pages 375-90, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  12. Curran, Christopher, 1992. "The spread of the comparative negligence rule in the United States," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 317-332, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Kolstad, Charles D & Ulen, Thomas S & Johnson, Gary V, 1990. "Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regulation: Substitutes or Complements?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 888-901, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Endres, Alfred, 1992. "Strategic behavior under tort law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 377-380, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

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.)

  1. Dhammika Dharmapala & Sandra A. Hoffmann, 2002. "Bilateral Accidents with Intrinsically Interdependent Costs of Precaution," Working papers 2002-11, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? To receive notification of recent additions to the database, subscribe to the free NEP reports.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.