IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/118440.html

Successive Joint Torts: Conditions for Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Jain, Satish

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the derivation of conditions for efficiency for liability rules for successive joint torts. In a successive joint tort, in the first instance the victim suffers harm on account of interaction with a tortfeasor, which subsequently is aggravated because of interaction with another tortfeasor. There can of course be no aggravation if there is no accident in the first instance. A liability rule for successive joint torts is a rule that determines (i) in case of first accident, the liability shares of the victim and the first injurer on the basis of the extents of negligence of the victim and the first injurer; and (ii) in case of second accident, the liability shares of the victim and the two injurers on the basis of the extents of negligence of the victim and the two injurers. It is shown in the paper that a liability rule for successive joint torts is efficient if the following condition is satisfied: if one of the victim and the first injurer is negligent and the other nonnegligent, then the entire accident loss resulting from interaction between the victim and the first injurer is to be borne by the negligent individual; and if one of the victim and the two injurers is negligent then no nonnegligent individual is to bear any part of the accident loss resulting from interaction between the victim and the second injurer. This condition has been termed in the paper as negligence liability for successive joint torts (NL-SJT). A subclass of the class of all liability rules for successive joint torts is that of simple liability rules for successive joint torts. A simple liability rule for successive joint torts apportions the accident losses solely on the basis of negligence or otherwise of individuals; the extents of negligence are not taken into account. It turns out that a simple liability rule for successive joint torts is efficient if and only if it satisfies NL-SJT. Whether NL-SJT is necessary for efficiency of any liability rule for successive joint torts remains an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • Jain, Satish, 2023. "Successive Joint Torts: Conditions for Efficiency," MPRA Paper 118440, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:118440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/118440/1/successive.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Satish Kumar Jain, 2015. "Economic Analysis of Liability Rules," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-81-322-2029-9, January.
    2. Miceli, Thomas J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 1991. "Joint liability in torts: Marginal and infra-marginal efficiency," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 235-249, December.
    3. Jain, Satish K. & Kundu, Rajendra P., 2006. "Characterization of efficient simple liability rules with multiple tortfeasors," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 410-427, September.
    4. Satish K. Jain & Ram Singh, 2002. "Efficient Liability Rules: Complete Characterization," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 105-124, March.
    5. Tom H. Tietenberg, 1989. "Indivisible Toxic Torts: The Economics of Joint and Several Liability," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(4), pages 305-319.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jain, Satish K. & Kundu, Rajendra P., 2006. "Characterization of efficient simple liability rules with multiple tortfeasors," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 410-427, September.
    2. Satish K. Jain, 2009. "Efficiency Of Liability Rules With Multiple Victims," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 119-134, February.
    3. Kundu, Rajendra P. & Kaur, Harshil, 2022. "Efficient simple liability assignment rules: A complete characterization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 22-31.
    4. Lando, Henrik & Schweizer, Urs, 2021. "Causation and the incentives of multiple injurers," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Papiya Ghosh & Rajendra P. Kundu, 2023. "Decomposition of accident loss and decoupled liability assignment: A class of negligence rules," Indian Economic Review, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 119-140, June.
    6. Harshil Kaur & Rajendra P. Kundu, 2020. "Efficient Liability Assignment: Is Coupling a Necessity?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(3), pages 2388-2394.
    7. Jain Satish K. & Kundu Rajendra P., 2015. "Decomposition of Accident Loss and Efficiency of Liability Rules," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 453-480, November.
    8. Robert Cooter & Ariel Porat, 2007. "Total Liability for Excessive Harm," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 63-80, January.
    9. Alberini, Anna & Austin, David, 1999. "On and Off the Liability Bandwagon: Explaining State Adoptions of Strict Liability in Hazardous Waste Programs," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 41-63, January.
    10. Horan, Richard D. & Shortle, James S. & Abler, David G., 1998. "Ambient Taxes When Polluters Have Multiple Choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 186-199, September.
    11. Daniel Carvell & Janet Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2012. "Accidental death and the rule of joint and several liability," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 51-77, March.
    12. Rajendra P. Kundu, 2009. "Efficiency Of Liability Rules With Interdependent Costs Of Care," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 71-88, February.
    13. Singh, Ram, 2007. "‘Causation-consistent’ liability, economic efficiency and the law of torts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 179-203.
    14. Allan M. Feldman & Ram Singh, 2009. "Comparative Vigilance," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 134-161.
    15. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    16. Anna Alberini & John Bartholomew, 1999. "The Determinants Of Hazardous Waste Disposal Choice: An Empirical Analysis Of Halogenated Solvent Waste Shipments," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(3), pages 309-320, July.
    17. Ram Singh, 2002. "Causation, Economic Efficiency and the Law of Torts," Working papers 102, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    18. Ram Singh, 2009. "RISK, INFORMATIONAL ASYMMETRY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY: An Enquiry Into Conflicting Objectives," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 89-112, February.
    19. Chang, Howard F. & Sigman, Hilary, 2007. "The effect of joint and several liability under superfund on brownfields," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 363-384, December.
    20. Charreire, Maxime & Langlais, Eric, 2021. "Should environment be a concern for competition policy when firms face environmental liability?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    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:pra:mprapa:118440. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.