IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/latm04/74.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deterrence, Lawsuits and Litigation Outcomes under Agency Problems and Court Errors

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia M. Landeo
  • Maxim Nikitin

Abstract

Punitive damage awards have been widely criticized for their unpredictability (2004 Economic Report of the President) and for generating a plaintiff’s windfall (i.e., a payment in excess of the costs of pursuing the punitive claim), which promotes unnecessary litigation (Dodson, 2000), the escalation of liability insurance premiums and over-deterrence. In an attempt to overcome some of these negative effects, several US states have implemented different kinds of tort reform. Some reforms take the form of caps or limits on punitive damage awards while others, called “split-recoveries†, have mandated that a share of the award be allocated to the plaintiff with the remainder going to the state. Our paper presents a strategic model of liability and litigation that incorporates agency problems between the plaintiff and its attorney and court errors on assessing liability. We extend Hylton’s (2002) theoretical framework by explicitly modeling the role of the plaintiff’s attorney and by deriving sufficient conditions for a unique universally-divine mixed-strategy perfect Bayesian equilibrium (Banks and Sobel, 1987). In this empirically relevant equilibrium, some defendants choose to be liable; some lawsuits are not meritorious (frivolous lawsuits); and, some lawsuits are dropped, some are resolved out-of-court and some go to trial. Our model allows for court errors on assessing the liability of defendants. Predictability of punitive awards is defined as the probability that a defendant will be erroneously found liable of punitive damages by the court. We derive analytically the optimal level of punitive awards under caps and split-recoveries. We also analyze the effect of predictability on deterrence and litigation outcomes and find a predictability threshold beyond which the deterrence effect of punitive awards vanishes. We then analyze the effect of split-recoveries and caps on the probability that firms choose to be liable, the probability that frivolous lawsuits are filed, and the probability that a lawsuit proceeds to the award stage of a trial. Consistent with Babcock and Pogarsky’s (1999) findings on caps, and with Landeo, Nikitin and Babcock’s (2004) findings on split-recoveries, our model predicts that caps and split-recoveries decrease the probability of trial. However, caps and split-recoveries also increase the likelihood that a firm chooses to be liable (and therefore, increase the probability of accidents) because they lower the expected litigation costs. The firm reacts to these lower expected costs by reducing expenditures on safety. Finally, split-recoveries and caps reduce the incentives for the frivolous plaintiffs to file a lawsuit. We establish sufficient conditions under which the overall welfare effect of these reforms is unambiguously positive, because the reduction in frivolous lawsuits and the reduction in litigation costs of meritorious plaintiffs and defendants offset the negative effect of increasing the likelihood of accidents.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia M. Landeo & Maxim Nikitin, 2004. "Deterrence, Lawsuits and Litigation Outcomes under Agency Problems and Court Errors," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 74, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:latm04:74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esLATM04/up.28190.1081144319.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
    2. Richard E. Caves, 1976. "Economic Models of Political Choice: Canada's Tariff Structure," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 9(2), pages 278-300, May.
    3. Terra, Cristina & Valladares, Frederico, 2010. "Real exchange rate misalignments," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, pages 119-144.
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 833-850.
    5. M. Ali Khan & Tapan Mitra, 2005. "On choice of technique in the Robinson-Solow-Srinivasan model," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, pages 83-110.
    6. Pecorino, Paul, 1998. "Is There a Free-Rider Problem in Lobbying? Endogenous Tariffs, Trigger Strategies, and the Number of Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 652-660, June.
    7. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    8. Bohara, Alok K. & Gawande, Kishore & Sanguinetti, Pablo, 2004. "Trade diversion and declining tariffs: evidence from Mercosur," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, pages 65-88.
    9. Giovanni Maggi & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 1998. "The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(3), pages 574-601, June.
    10. Theo Eicher & Thomas Osang, 2002. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1702-1710, December.
    11. Leonardo Rocha Souza, 2005. "A Note On Chambers'S "Long Memory And Aggregation In Macroeconomic Time Series"," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1059-1062, August.
    12. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-160, February.
    13. Monteiro, P. K. & Araújo, Aloísio Pessoa de & Martins-da-Rocha, Victor Filipe, 2003. "Equilibria in security markets with a continuum of agents," FGV/EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 513, FGV/EPGE - Escola Brasileira de Economia e Finanças, Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil).
    14. Costa, Cristiano M. & Ferreira, Daniel & Moreira, Humberto, 2005. "Biased managers, organizational design, and incentive provision," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 379-385, March.
    15. Devashish Mitra, 1999. "Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1116-1134, December.
    16. Leonardo Souza & Jeremy Smith & Reinaldo Souza, 2006. "Convex combinations of long memory estimates from different sampling rates," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 399-413, December.
    17. Pedro Cavalcanti Ferreira & JosÈ Luiz Rossi, 2003. "New Evidence from Brazil on Trade Liberalization and Productivity Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1383-1405, November.
    18. Araujo, Aloisio & Moreira, Humberto & Tsuchida, Marcos, 2007. "The Trade-Off Between Incentives and Endogenous Risk," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 27(2), November.
    19. Assunção, Juliano Junqueira & Moreira, Humberto Ataíde, 2004. "Land taxes in a Latin American context," FGV/EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 526, FGV/EPGE - Escola Brasileira de Economia e Finanças, Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil).
    20. Rodrik, Dani, 1986. "Tariffs, subsidies, and welfare with endogenous policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 285-299, November.
    21. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
    22. Olarreaga, Marcelo & Soloaga, Isidro, 1998. "Endogenous Tariff Formation: The Case of Mercosur," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 12(2), pages 297-320, May.
    23. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics,in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494 Elsevier.
    24. SM Helfand, 2000. "Interest Groups And Economic Policy: Explaining The Pattern Of Protection In The Brazilian Agricultural Sector," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(4), pages 462-476, October.
    25. Neri, Marcelo Cortes & Soares, Wagner Lopes, 2003. "Idade, incapacidade e a inflação do número de pessoas com deficiência," FGV/EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 490, FGV/EPGE - Escola Brasileira de Economia e Finanças, Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil).
    26. Magee, Christopher, 2002. "Endogenous trade policy and lobby formation: an application to the free-rider problem," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 449-471, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Settlement; Bargaining; Litigation; Asymmetric Information;

    JEL classification:

    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecm:latm04:74. 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: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.