IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v26y1997i2p477-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining the Variance in the Number of Tort Suits across U.S. States and between the United States and England

Author

Listed:
  • Posner, Richard A

Abstract

There is enormous variance across jurisdictions in the number of cases filed, even when the laws in the different jurisdictions are similar. This article is an empirical study of the variance in the number of tort cases across U.S. states (plus the District, of Columbia and England), all of which have basically similar common-law tort principles and procedures. Regression analysis reveals that explanatory variable that can be given an economic interpretation, such as income, education, and urbanization, can explain much of the variance among these jurisdictions and that cultural factors are less important. A surprising result is that, after correcting for the economic variables, England appears to be more rather than, as generally believed, much less litigious than the United States. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Posner, Richard A, 1997. "Explaining the Variance in the Number of Tort Suits across U.S. States and between the United States and England," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 477-489, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:477-89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468005
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    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. Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. Vries, 2005. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(505), pages 583-601, July.
    2. Juan S. Mora-Sanguinetti & Nuno Garoupa, 2015. "Litigation in Spain 2001-2010: Exploring the market for legar services," Working Papers 1505, Banco de España;Working Papers Homepage.
    3. Paolo Buonanno & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2012. "Advocatus, et non Latro? Testing the Supplier-Induced Demand Hypothesis for the Italian Courts of Justice," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 250, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    4. Eric Helland & Anupam B. Jena & Dan P. Ly & Seth A. Seabury, 2016. "Self-insuring against Liability Risk: Evidence from Physician Home Values in States with Unlimited Homestead Exemptions," NBER Working Papers 22031, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Amanda Carmignani & Silvia Giacomelli, 2010. "Too many lawyers? Litigation in Italian civil courts," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 745, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    6. repec:kap:ejlwec:v:44:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10657-016-9543-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Roberto Ippoliti, 2014. "La competitività del mercato forense e l’efficienza giudiziaria," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(2), pages 53-90.
    8. Paolo Buonanno & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2009. "Advocatus, et non latro? Testing the supplier-induced demand hypothesis for Italian courts of justice," Working Papers 0914, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
    9. Gerhard Clemenz & Klaus Gugler, 2000. "Macroeconomic Development and Civil Litigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 215-230, May.
    10. Frenzen, Paul D. & Buzby, Jean C. & Rasco, Barbara, 2001. "Product Liability And Microbial Foodborne Illness," Agricultural Economics Reports 34059, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. repec:eee:irlaec:v:53:y:2018:i:c:p:9-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mora-Sanguinetti, Juan S. & Garoupa, Nuno, 2015. "Do lawyers induce litigation? Evidence from Spain, 2001–2010," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 29-41.

    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:2:p:477-89. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.