IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ajlecn/v7y2016i2p147-168n5.html

Uncertainty Regarding Interpretation of the “Negligence Rule” and Its Implications for the Efficiency of Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jain Satish K.

    (Jawaharlal Nehru University, CESP/SSS, JNU, New Delhi 110067, India)

Abstract

There are two ways that the negligence rule is interpreted. Under one interpretation a negligent injurer is liable for the entire harm to the victim; and under the other interpretation a negligent injurer is liable only for that part of the harm which can be ascribed to his negligence. Both these versions are efficient. However, if there is uncertainty regarding whether the court will be employing the full liability version or the incremental liability version for determining the liability of a negligent injurer, notwithstanding the fact that both the versions are efficient, inefficiency is possible. It is shown in the paper that a necessary and sufficient condition for efficiency in all cases is that the subjective probability with which the injurer expects the standard version to be employed must be greater than or equal to the subjective probability with which the victim expects the standard version to be employed. For the subset of applications without complementarities in the cares of the two parties and which are such that the total social costs are minimized at a unique care-configuration, it is shown that efficiency obtains regardless of the subjective probabilities with which the parties expect the two versions. One very important conclusion that emerges from the analysis of this paper is that when courts employ more than one liability rule, even if all the employed rules are efficient, the efficiency of all outcomes cannot be taken for granted merely on the ground of the efficiency of the employed rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Jain Satish K., 2016. "Uncertainty Regarding Interpretation of the “Negligence Rule” and Its Implications for the Efficiency of Outcomes," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 147-168, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:7:y:2016:i:2:p:147-168:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2015-0031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2015-0031
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ajle-2015-0031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 427-447, June.
    2. Satish Jain, 2010. "On the efficiency of the negligence rule," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 343-359.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lars Klöhn, 2011. "Unmanifested Harm in Business-to-Consumer Transactions," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(1), pages 94-97, March.
    2. Tim Friehe, 2014. "Tacit collusion and liability rules," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 453-469, December.
    3. Singh, Ram, 2007. "‘Causation-consistent’ liability, economic efficiency and the law of torts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 179-203.
    4. Allan M. Feldman & Ram Singh, 2009. "Comparative Vigilance," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 134-161.
    5. Gérard Mondello, 2013. "Ambiguous Beliefs on Damages and Civil Liability Theories"," Post-Print halshs-00929948, HAL.
    6. Keith Hylton & Haizhen Lin & Hyo-Youn Chu, 2015. "Negligence and two-sided causation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 393-411, December.
    7. Mattiacci, Giuseppe Dari & Parisi, Francesco, 2003. "The cost of delegated control: vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-475, December.
    8. Henry van Egteren & R. Smith, 2002. "Environmental Regulations Under Simple Negligence or Strict Liability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(4), pages 367-394, April.
    9. Thomas J. Miceli, 2003. "Varying Injurer Costs of Care, Negligence, and Self-Selection," Working papers 2003-11, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    10. Ram Singh, 2002. "Causation, Economic Efficiency and the Law of Torts," Working papers 102, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    11. Miceli, Thomas J., 1996. "Cause in fact, proximate cause, and the hand rule: Extending Grady's positive economic theory of negligence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 473-482, December.
    12. Robert Cooter & Ariel Porat, 2015. "Disgorgement Damages for Accidents," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 249-276.
    13. Feldman Allan M. & Singh Ram, 2011. "A Simple Guide to Comparative Vigilance," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-24, October.
    14. Satish Jain, 2006. "Efficiency of liability rules: A reconsideration," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 359-373.
    15. van 't Veld, Klaas & Shogren, Jason F., 2012. "Environmental federalism and environmental liability," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 105-119.
    16. Allan M Feldman & Ram Singh, 2008. "Comparative Vigilance: a Simple Guide," Working Papers 2008-11, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    17. Gérard Mondello, 2017. "Lenders and Risky Activities: Strict Liability or Negligence Rule?," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    18. Sven Hoeppner & Laura Lyhs, 2016. "Behavior Under Vague Standards: Evidence from the Laboratory," Jena Economics Research Papers 2016-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Schweizer, Urs, 2006. "Tortious Acts Affecting Markets," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 106, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    20. Florian Baumann & Alexander Rasch, 2024. "Product Liability and Reasonable Product Use," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 297-338.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:7:y:2016:i:2:p:147-168:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.