On the efficiency of the negligence rule
The three versions of the negligence rule discussed in the literature differ regarding whether a negligent injurer is liable for the entire loss or only for the incremental loss; or regarding whether negligence is defined as failure to take at least due care or failure to take a cost-justified precaution. It is shown in the paper that the incremental version with untaken precaution notion of negligence is not efficient; not even for the unilateral case. The paper also establishes, for the bilateral case, the efficiency of the incremental version with the shortfall-from-due-care way of defining negligence.
Volume (Year): 13 (2010)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/GPRE19|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GPRE19|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jpolrf:v:13:y:2010:i:4:p:343-359. 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: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.