IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Using the Event Study Methodology to Measure the Social Costs of Litigation - A Re-Examination Using Cases from the Automobile Industry

Listed author(s):
  • Govindaraj Suresh
  • Lee Picheng
  • Tinkelman Daniel
Registered author(s):

    In a comprehensive study extending prior research, Prince and Rubin (2002) use the event study methodology, and find negative market reaction to a sample of 15 initial filings of product liability litigation and 29 other litigation events against U.S. automakers between 1973 and 1995. They conclude that the event study methodology is a useful way to measure the costs of litigation. In contrast, after examination of a new sample of 144 initial filing events and 465 other litigation events for six major automobile firms from 1985 to 2000, and after re-examining Prince and Rubins data, we find that the market reaction to all but the most extreme and infrequent events is generally not significant. We suggest that the event study methodology may not generally be useful to study the social costs of litigation, but may be useful for unexpected abnormal litigation events where the potential liabilities (including reputation and other losses triggered by litigation) may far exceed the legal liability reserves set up by firms. We find mixed results for the market impact of litigation against a competitor. When a product liability lawsuit is first filed against a U.S. firm, the market values of the Japanese firms significantly decline. When a Japanese firm is sued for product liability, the U.S. firms register a significant increase in market value. However, these spillover results have to be interpreted with caution because of small sample sizes and possible confounding events.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    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.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Review of Law & Economics.

    Volume (Year): 3 (2007)
    Issue (Month): 2 (November)
    Pages: 341-382

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:2:n:7
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:2:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.