Learning Liability Rules
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.
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.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.