IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2006-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Customary versus Technological. Advancement Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Deffains
  • Dominique Demougi

Abstract

In an environment where the optimal level of care is unknown, we ask under a state of the art defense which method is better able to induce parties to undertake optimal care. Assuming courts can see a noisy signal of research activities undertaken by a defendant and some of its competitors, we ask whether courts should use a biased or unbiased average to compare care. We find that the later is better.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Deffains & Dominique Demougi, 2006. "Customary versus Technological. Advancement Tests," Working Papers of BETA 2006-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2006-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2006/2006-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tort law; standard of care; customary test; technological advancement test.;
    All these 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:ulp:sbbeta:2006-12. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.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.