Research Handbook on Economic Models of Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on Economic Models of Law

Edited by Thomas J. Miceli and Matthew J. Baker

One of the great successes of the law and economics movement has been the use of economic models to explain the structure and function of broad areas of law. The original contributions to this volume epitomize that tradition, offering state-of-the-art research on the many facets of economic modeling in law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: Tort standards and legal expenditures: a unified model

Jef De Mot and Ben Depoorter


Law and economics scholars have long debated the efficiency benefits of various liability standards. Specifically, a lively debate exists even to date as to whether a comparative negligence or contributory negligence provides better incentives to adopt efficient care (see, e.g., Artigot i Golobardes and GÛmez Pomar 2009; Bar-Gill and Ben-Shahar 2003). Whereas the early literature concluded that contributory negligence was more efficient (e.g., Brown 1973; Diamond 1974; Posner 1977), scholars subsequently questioned the alleged superiority of comparative negligence on various grounds (Haddock and Curran 1985; Shavell 1987; Cooter and Ulen 1986; Bar-Gill and Ben-Shahar 2003). Whereas the efficiency-promoting aspects of various tort standards remain a contentious matter, there is a widespread consensus that a comparative negligence standard imposes higher administrative costs than a simple negligence standard (Landes and Posner 1987; White 1989) or a simple negligence standard with a defense of contributory negligence (Shavell 1987; Bar-Gill and Ben-Shahar 2001). White (1989), for instance, argues that a comparative negligence standard likely generates higher litigation and administrative costs than contributory negligence because courts must assess the degree of negligence by both parties and not just whether the parties were negligent. De Mot (2013) argues that this wisdom obviously applies to settings involving exogenous litigation costs, but that the literature has not considered whether it holds in a more realistic setting where litigation costs are endogenously determined.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.