IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v11y2015i3p453-480n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decomposition of Accident Loss and Efficiency of Liability Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Jain Satish K.

    (School of Social Sciences, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India)

  • Kundu Rajendra P.

    (School of Social Sciences, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India)

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to show that the set of efficient rules which apportion liability between the victim and the tortfeasor is much larger than is generally believed to be the case. A larger set of efficient rules in general would have the implication of a less sharp conflict between economic efficiency on the one hand and non-efficiency normative criteria on the other. The condition of negligence liability which characterizes efficiency in the context of liability rules has an all-or-none character. Negligence liability requires that if one party is negligent and the other is not then the liability for the entire accident loss must fall on the negligent party. Thus within the framework of standard liability rules efficiency requirements preclude any non-efficiency considerations in situations where one party is negligent and the other is not. In this paper it is shown that accident loss can be decomposed into two parts such that while the apportionment of one part between the parties has bearing on efficiency, the apportionment of the other part has no efficiency implications. The part of accident loss which plays no role in providing appropriate incentives to the parties for taking due care can therefore be apportioned on non-efficiency considerations without in any way compromising the social goal of efficiency. For a systematic analysis of the requirements for efficiency, in this paper a notion more general than that of a liability rule, namely that of a decomposed liability rule, is introduced. A complete characterization of efficient decomposed liability rules is provided in the paper. The most important implication of the theorems of this paper is that by decomposing accident loss into two parts, the scope for non-efficiency considerations can be significantly broadened without sacrificing economic efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Jain Satish K. & Kundu Rajendra P., 2015. "Decomposition of Accident Loss and Efficiency of Liability Rules," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 453-480, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:453-480:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2013-0046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2013-0046
    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/rle-2013-0046?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Singh Ram, 2007. "Comparative Causation and Economic Efficiency: When Activity Levels are Constant," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 383-406, December.
    2. Parisi Francesco & Singh Ram, 2010. "The Efficiency of Comparative Causation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 219-245, September.
    3. Dari-Mattiacci Giuseppe & Hendriks Eva S., 2013. "Relative Fault and Efficient Negligence: Comparative Negligence Explained," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-40, June.
    4. Chung, Tai-Yeong, 1993. "Efficiency of Comparative Negligence: A Game Theoretic Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 395-404, June.
    5. Jain, Satish K. & Kundu, Rajendra P., 2006. "Characterization of efficient simple liability rules with multiple tortfeasors," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 410-427, September.
    6. Satish K. Jain & Ram Singh, 2002. "Efficient Liability Rules: Complete Characterization," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 105-124, March.
    7. Orr, Daniel, 1991. "The Superiority of Comparative Negligence: Another Vote," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 119-129, January.
    8. Oren Bar-Gill & Omri Ben-Shahar, 2003. "The Uneasy Case for Comparative Negligence," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 5(2), pages 433-469, August.
    9. Emanuela Carbonara & Alice Guerra & Francesco Parisi, 2016. "Sharing Residual Liability: The Cheapest Cost Avoider Revisited," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 173-201.
    10. Miceli, Thomas J., 1997. "Economics of the Law: Torts, Contracts, Property, Litigation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195103908.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Papiya Ghosh & Rajendra P. Kunda, 2021. "Decomposition of accident loss and decoupled liability assignment: A class of negligencerules," Working Papers 2157, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
    2. Kundu, Rajendra P. & Kaur, Harshil, 2022. "Efficient simple liability assignment rules: A complete characterization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 22-31.
    3. Papiya Ghosh & Rajendra P. Kundu, 2023. "Decomposition of accident loss and decoupled liability assignment: A class of negligence rules," Indian Economic Review, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 119-140, June.

    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. Feldman Allan & Singh Ram, 2021. "Equilibria Under Negligence Liability: How the Standard Claims Fall Apart," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-33, March.
    2. Ogden, Benjamin G. & Hylton, Keith N., 2020. "Incentives to take care under contributory and comparative fault: The role of strategic complementarity," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. Ram Singh, 2006. "On the Existence and Efficiency of Equilibria under Liability Rules," Working papers 150, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    4. FRANCESCO PARISI & Ram Singh, 2009. "Efficiency Of Equilibria Under Comparative Causation," Working papers 179, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    5. Dari-Mattiacci Giuseppe & Hendriks Eva S., 2013. "Relative Fault and Efficient Negligence: Comparative Negligence Explained," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-40, June.
    6. Parisi Francesco & Singh Ram, 2010. "The Efficiency of Comparative Causation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 219-245, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Lovat & Francesco Parisi, 2014. "Loss-Sharing between Nonnegligent Parties," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(4), pages 571-598, December.
    9. Allan M Feldman & Ram Singh, 2021. "Equilibria under Liability Rules: How the standard claims fall apart," Working papers 315, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    10. Ram Singh, 2005. "Comparative Causation -- A Re-examination," Working papers 139, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    11. Allan M. Feldman & Ram Singh, 2009. "Comparative Vigilance," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 134-161.
    12. Allan M Feldman & Ram Singh, 2008. "Comparative Vigilance: a Simple Guide," Working Papers 2008-11, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    13. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Gerrit De Geest, 2005. "The Filtering Effect of Sharing Rules," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 207-237, January.
    14. Allan M. Feldman & Ram Singh, 2009. "Comparative Vigilance," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 134-161.
    15. Emanuela Carbonara & Alice Guerra & Francesco Parisi, 2016. "Sharing Residual Liability: The Cheapest Cost Avoider Revisited," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 173-201.
    16. Jain, Satish K. & Kundu, Rajendra P., 2006. "Characterization of efficient simple liability rules with multiple tortfeasors," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 410-427, September.
    17. Ram Singh, 2002. "Causation, Economic Efficiency and the Law of Torts," Working papers 102, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    18. Ram Singh, 2009. "RISK, INFORMATIONAL ASYMMETRY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY: An Enquiry Into Conflicting Objectives," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 89-112, February.
    19. Acciarri Hugo A. & Tohmé Fernando & Castellano Andrea, 2016. "Causal Apportionment of Tort Liability: An Efficient Approach," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 37-55, March.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tort law; liability rules; decomposed liability rules; efficient rules; negligence liability; non-efficiency normative criteria; loss decomposition;
    All these 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:rlecon:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:453-480:n:4. 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.degruyter.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.