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.
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.
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.
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.