IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

How to share joint liability: a cooperative game approach

Listed author(s):
  • DEHEZ, Pierre


    (Université catholique de Louvain, CORE, Belgium)

  • FEREY, Samuel


    (BETA, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France.)

Registered author(s):

    Sharing a damage that has been caused jointly by several individuals - called tortfeasors - is a difficult problem that courts often face. Even if there are basic principles and rules to apportion damages among them, legal scholars are still looking for a systematic apportionment method. We analyze that question from a normative point of view, using the theory of cooperative games that offers an axiomatic approach to surplus or cost sharing. We show how this kind of damage can be apportioned on two distinct basis, causation and degree of misconduct. Our analysis is based on the concept of potential damage. The potential damage associated to a subset of tortfeasors is the monetary value of the damage that they would have caused without the participation of the other tortfeasors. It is distinct from the additional damage associated to a subset of tortfeasors that is given by the difference between the total damage and the potential damage of the complementary subset. We distinguish two situations of joint liability, the simultaneous case where the damage would not have occurred in the absence of any one of the tortfeasors and the sequential case where the sequence of acts that has produced the damage is known. In the simultaneous case, the potential damage of an individual tortfeasor is by definition zero. In the sequential case, the only information needed is the immediate damage each tortfeasor has caused, depending on his or her position in the sequence. A judgment specifies for each tortfeasor an amount to be paid. That amount should not exceed his or her additional damage but should not fall below his or her potential damage. This defines two natural bounds, an upper bound and a lower bound, that we extend to subsets of tortfeasors. A judgment is fair if the contribution of any subset of tortfeasors is inferior to his potential damage and superior to his additional damage. Particular fair judgments are then obtained by assigning weights to tortfeasors to reflect difference in degrees of misconduct. In game theoretic terms, potential damages define a transferable utility game whose core defines fair judgments. We show that weighted Shapley values define fair judgments and, vice versa, fair judgments reveal weights. Our paper illustrates how the cooperative approach may bring useful insights into legal questions. The Shapley value appears of particular interest in a legal context because it is founded on axioms that are in line with the fundamental principles of tort law.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE) in its series CORE Discussion Papers with number 2012023.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 21 Jul 2012
    Handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2012023
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Voie du Roman Pays 34, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)

    Phone: 32(10)474321
    Fax: +32 10474304
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, March.
    2. Monderer, Dov & Samet, Dov & Shapley, Lloyd S, 1992. "Weighted Values and the Core," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 21(1), pages 27-39.
    3. Parisi Francesco & Singh Ram, 2010. "The Efficiency of Comparative Causation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 219-245, September.
    4. Pierre Dehez, 2011. "Allocation of fixed costs: characterization of the (dual) weighted Shapley value," Working Papers of BETA 2011-03, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. S. C. Littlechild & G. Owen, 1973. "A Simple Expression for the Shapley Value in a Special Case," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 370-372, November.
    6. repec:cor:louvrp:-2405 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Greenberg, Joseph & Weber, Shlomo, 1986. "Strong tiebout equilibrium under restricted preferences domain," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 101-117, February.
    8. Ichiishi, Tatsuro, 1981. "Super-modularity: Applications to convex games and to the greedy algorithm for LP," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 283-286, October.
    9. repec:wsi:igtrxx:v:13:y:2011:i:02:n:s0219198911002915 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Duranton, Gilles & Martin, Philippe & Mayer, Thierry & Mayneris, Florian, 2010. "The Economics of Clusters: Lessons from the French Experience," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199592203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2012023. 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: (Alain GILLIS)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.