Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies

被引:26
作者
Dari-Mattiacci, G [1 ]
De Geest, G [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Sch Econ, NL-3511 BG Utrecht, Netherlands
来源
JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT | 2005年 / 161卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.1628/0932456054254470
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This study shows that the effects of judgment proofness on precaution depend on whether the injurer can reduce the probability of the accident, the magnitude of the harm, or both. Different legal solutions to the problem are examined: punitive damages, average compensation, undercompensation, accurate compensation, and negligence. We find that when the injurer can only reduce the probability of the accident, negligence with average compensation is the best solution, but negligence with perfectly compensatory damages is the desirable solution if the injurer can only or also affect the magnitude of the harm.
引用
收藏
页码:38 / 56
页数:19
相关论文
共 16 条
[11]   TORT LAW AS A REGULATORY REGIME FOR CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL INJURIES [J].
LANDES, WM ;
POSNER, RA .
JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 1984, 13 (03) :417-434
[12]   Using decoupling and deep pockets to mitigate judgment-proof problems [J].
Lewis, TR ;
Sappington, DEM .
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS, 1999, 19 (02) :275-293
[13]   A note on optimal care by wealth-constrained injurers [J].
Miceli, TJ ;
Segerson, K .
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS, 2003, 23 (03) :273-284
[14]  
Shavell Steven., 1986, INT REV LAW EC, V6, P45, DOI DOI 10.1016/0144-8188(86)90038-4
[15]   SETTLEMENT BARGAINING AND THE DESIGN OF DAMAGE AWARDS [J].
SPIER, KE .
JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS & ORGANIZATION, 1994, 10 (01) :84-95
[16]  
SUMMERS J, 1983, U PENN LAW REV, V132, P145