IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v26y1997i1p145-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning Liability Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Wittman, Donald
  • Friedman, Daniel
  • Crevier, Stephanie
  • Braskin, Aaron

Abstract

We conduct experiments regarding the equilibrium and convergence properties of three different liability rules: negligence with contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and no-fault. Our experimental results show that, in comparison to contributory negligence, comparative negligence promotes a faster and more reliable convergence to the efficient equilibrium. Furthermore, as predicted by theory, the no-fault equilibrium yields suboptimal amounts of effort. Along the way we also test varioius hypotheses regarding learning and other adjustment dynamics. Thus our article extends the traditional static notion of institutional choice-liability rules with efficient equilibria are chosen-to a more dynamic perspective-rules that rapidly achieve efficient equilibria are chosen. Coauthors are Daniel Friedman, Stephanie Crevier, and Aaron Braskin. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Wittman, Donald & Friedman, Daniel & Crevier, Stephanie & Braskin, Aaron, 1997. "Learning Liability Rules," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(1), pages 145-164, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:1:p:145-64
    DOI: 10.1086/467991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467991
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/467991?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Pascal Langenbach, 2020. "Fines versus Damages: Experimental Evidence on Care Investments," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Vera Angelova & Olivier Armantier & Giuseppe Attanasi & Yolande Hiriart, 2014. "Relative performance of liability rules: experimental evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 531-556, December.
    3. Mingli Zheng, 2001. "Liability Rules and Evolutionary Dynamics," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 157(4), pages 520-535, December.
    4. Allan M. Feldman & Jeonghyun Kim, 2003. "Victim or Injurer:Negligence-Based Liability Rules Under Role-Type Uncertainty, With An Extension to Collisions Of Different-Sized Vehicles," Working Papers 2003-17, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    5. Serge Garcia & Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert, 2017. "Comparison of liability sharing rules for environmental damage: An experiment with different levels of solvency," Working Papers of BETA 2017-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Dopuch, Nicholas & Ingberman, Daniel E. & King, Ronald R., 1997. "An experimental investigation of multi-defendant bargaining in 'joint and several' and proportionate liability regimes," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 189-221, July.
    7. Kim, Jeonghyun & Feldman, Allan M., 2006. "Victim or injurer, small car or SUV: Tort liability rules under role-type uncertainty," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 455-477, December.
    8. Giuseppe Attanasi & Laura Concina & Caroline Kamaté & Valentina Rotondi, 2020. "Firm’s protection against disasters: are investment and insurance substitutes or complements?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 121-151, February.
    9. Ronald R. King & Rachel Schwartz, 1999. "Legal Penalties and Audit Quality: An Experimental Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 685-710, December.
    10. Theodore Eisenberg & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Unpacking Negligence Liability: Experimentally Testing the Governance Effect," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 116-152, March.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:1:p:145-64. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.