Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Extensions of the Model.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Negligence, Pt. 2 Law 12 – MUNDY Defences for Negligence Contributory Negligence Voluntary Assumption of Risk Inevitable Accident.
Advertisements

Defenses Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence Assumption of Risk Last Clear Chance Immunity Ultra Vires.
© Family Economics & Financial Education – Updated April 2008 – Insurance Unit – Types of Insurance Funded by a grant from Take Charge America, Inc. to.
ECON 1450 – Professor Berkowitz Lectures on Chapter 2 Tort Law Area of Common Law concerned with accidental injuries Potential defendant engages in activity.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Is Tort Law about Money.
What You’ll Learn How to define negligence (p. 88)
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Litigation and Procedure Negligence and Strict Liability Litigation and Procedure Negligence.
{ Chapter 10 TORTS: Negligence and Strict Liability.
Chapter 18: Torts A Civil Wrong
Law I Chapter 18.
Tort Law Part 2 Negligence and Liability. Negligence Most common tort Accidental or Unintentional Tort Failure to show a degree of care that a “reasonable”
The Legal Obligations of Safety Auditors Do safety auditors belong to any profession? What is a profession?
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. © 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 5 Negligence Chapter.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Taking a Case to Court.
Public Injury vs. Public Offenses
Tort Law – Unintentional torts
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Other Issues in Tort Law.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Errors in Application.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Negligence. The Problem Neither the rule of strict liability nor the rule of no liability gives both victim and injurer.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton A Model of Joint Action.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Levels of Activity.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Tort Law Reform.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton A Model of Liability.
Negligence Chapter 8. Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning Objectives Define and identify elements of negligence. Explain concepts: –Duty –Standard.
Chapter 18.  Criminal Law: crime against the state  Civil Law: person commits a wrong, not always a violation of law  Plaintiff-the harmed individual,
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
Insurance and risk management Standard 11. What is risk? O the likelihood of loss or profit O from an investment O from some threat to your well-being.
What is Personal Risk Management?. What is Risk? Risk is the chance of loss from some type of danger. Risk is the chance of loss from some type of danger.
 1. Duty-The accused wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the injured person  2. Breach of Duty- the defendant’s conduct breached that duty  3. Causation-defendant’s.
© Family Economics & Financial Education – Updated January 2009 – Insurance Unit – Types of Insurance Funded by a grant from Take Charge America, Inc.
Agency Law. “If you want something done right, do it yourself.” “Many hands make light work.” Anonymous folk sayings.
NEGLIGENCE (Unintentional Torts). The elements of negligence: * Negligence * Duty of Care * Standard of Care * Foreseeability * “reasonable person” *
Lesson 5-1 Quiz Questions
Chapter 4 Section 2 Negligence and Strict Liability.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Insurance Terms Business Essentials. Term Insurance An insurance policy that provides coverage for a limited period, the value payable only if a loss.
CHAPTER 7 Negligence And Strict Liability.
3.2 Negligence and Liability
1. 2 NEGLIGENCE CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES AN UNREASONABLY GREAT RISK OF HARM THAT FALLS BELOW THE STANDARD OF CARE THE LAW ESTABLISHES FOR THE PROTECTION.
Chapter 20 Negligence. The failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care in either doing or not doing something resulting in harm or injury.
© Family Economics & Financial Education – Updated January 2009 – Insurance Unit – Types of Insurance Funded by a grant from Take Charge America, Inc.
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Relationship of Tort.
Econ 522 Economics of Law Dan Quint Fall 2009 Lecture 16.
Torts Civil Wrongs Tort When someone commits a wrong in civil law.
 I punch Joe in the face?  I start class by telling everyone that Joe drowns puppies?  I leave all of my teaching stuff in the doorway to the classroom,
Defences for Negligence. The best defence is Negligence did not exist, or the defendant didn’t owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The best defence is Negligence.
Legal Concerns Sports Medicine I. Legal Concerns Liability- the state of being legally responsible for the harm one causes another person. Liability-
Insurance 101 Personal Finance. Learning Goal To be able to define terms relating to insurance.
November 21, 2011 Objective: Students will identify the different parts to automobile insurance.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
Tort Law –Defenses to Negligence PA310 Wednesdays 8 PM EST “Do not take if allergic to aspirin.” - Bayer Aspirin.
Torts: A Civil Wrong Chapter 18. The Idea of Liability Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
CHAPTER 18 PART I Torts: A Civil Wrong. A Civil Wrong In criminal law, when someone commits a wrong, we call it a crime. In civil law, when someone commits.
Understanding Business and Personal Law Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2 The Law of Torts A person can commit an unintentional tort, when he.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Negligence SLO: I can understand the three types of torts, including negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability. I can identify relevant facts.
Section 4.2.
The Law of Torts I’m going to sue you!.
Negligence.
Liability in a Personal Injury Accident
Actions involving one or more dead parties
Torts.
Defences for Negligence
Torts.
Torts “ Civil Wrongs” Chapter 17
Section Outline Unintentional Torts Negligence Strict Liability
Lesson 6-1 Civil Law (Tort Law).
Recoverable Damages in a Pedestrian vs. Car Accident Case
Presentation transcript:

Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Extensions of the Model

Extensions Vicarious Liability Joint and Several Liability The Standard of Liability Damages from Death Risk Adjustment

Extensions of the Model Vicarious Liability Generally, you are responsible for the acts of your children

Extensions of the Model Vicarious Liability Generally, you are responsible for the acts of your children An employer is often responsible for employee acts.

Extensions of the Model Vicarious Liability Generally, you are responsible for the acts of your children An employer is often responsible for employee acts. At one time, a husband was responsible for the acts of his wife.

Extensions of the Model Joint and Several Liability I am walking along a sidewalk. A car hits a pothole, swerves, and hits me..

Extensions of the Model Joint and Several Liability I am walking along a sidewalk. A car hits a pothole, swerves, and hits me. –I meet any appropriate standard of precaution. –The injury is the dual fault of the driver for not watching for the pothole and the city for not filling it. – Whom can I sue?

Extensions of the Model An Operation I have an operation and something goes wrong. Is it the fault of the anesthetist or the surgeon? Who knows?

Extensions of the Model An Operation I have an operation and something goes wrong. Is it the fault of the anesthetist or the surgeon? Who knows? Common law said I could sue either party and recover the full damages from either source.

Extensions of the Model An Operation I have an operation and something goes wrong. Is it the fault of the anesthetist or the surgeon? Who knows? Common law said I could sue either party and recover the full damages from either source. –This has been mitigated recently. –Obviously there is a deep pockets argument to maintain the rule, at least from the point of view of the bar.

Extensions of the Model The Economics Both parties must exercise reasonable precaution. Suppose the damage is D; the probability of an injury is p(x i,x j ), where “i” and “j” are two potential injurers.

Extensions of the Model The Economics We want to minimize p(x i,x j )D + w i x i + w j x j

Extensions of the Model The Economics We want to minimize p(x i,x j )D + w i x i + w j x j That requires that p i D + w i = 0 p j D + w j = 0

Extensions of the Model The Economics We want to minimize p(x i,x j )D + w i x i + w j x j That requires that p i D + w i = 0 p j D + w j = 0 Both parties must be liable for the full cost of the accident.

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Traditionally the rule was negligence with contributory negligence. Most states now adopt comparative negligence except when products are involved.

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Traditionally the rule was negligence with contributory negligence. Most states now adopt comparative negligence except when products are involved. I am going 65 in a 30 zone, and you are going 35. I hit and injure you.

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Traditionally the rule was negligence with contributory negligence. Most states now adopt comparative negligence except when products are involved. I am going 65 in a 30 zone, and you are going 35. I hit and injure you. Under a rule of negligence with contributory negligence, I am off the hook.

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Traditionally the rule was negligence with contributory negligence. Most states now adopt comparative negligence except when products are involved. I am going 65 in a 30 zone, and you are going 35. I hit and injure you. Under a rule of negligence with contributory negligence, I am off the hook. The modern rule would make me liable, but not fully liable (you are, after all, doing 35).

Extensions of the Model Does this Make Sense Suppose I do not know the right standard, but have a probability Z(x) like that shown. 1 0 x x*

Extensions of the Model Does this Make Sense Suppose I do not know the right standard, but have a probability Z(x) like that shown. My best guess is x*. Even if I exercise x**>x* units of precaution, I still have a certain risk of being held liable. 1 0 x x*

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Now my problem changes. I must now invest in safety. I am now liable for p(x)Z(x)D - x Hitherto, Z(x) = 1 for x x*. No Longer. 1 0 x x*

Extensions of the Model The Standard of Liability Now my problem changes. I must now invest in safety. I am now liable for p(x)Z(x)D - x Hitherto, Z(x) = 1 for x x*. No Longer. 1 0 x x* This makes me want to be careful

Extensions of the Model Damages from Death For years you could not recover in the case of death. Thus if my wife died in an accident, I could recover for my loss, but not her loss. In fact, it is possible to estimate the damages.

Extensions of the Model Damages from Death For years you could not recover in the case of death. Thus if my wife died in an accident, I could recover for my loss, but not her loss. In fact, it is possible to estimate the damages. She has an indifference curve between income and the probability of death I(X,p), and you can figure her MRS between money and probability of death.

Extensions of the Model Calculating the Demanges Suppose she behaves so that she is indifferent between an additional 1% chance of dying and $10,000. The right amount to award for a death is $1,000,000.

Extensions of the Model Calculating the Demanges Suppose she behaves so that she is indifferent between an additional 1% chance of dying and $10,000. The right amount to award for a death is $1,000,000. This is not saying that I am indifferent between having my wife and $1,000,000, nor that my wife is indifferent between living and me having an additional $1,000,000

Extensions of the Model Calculating the Demanges Suppose she behaves so that she is indifferent between an additional 1% chance of dying and $10,000. The right amount to award for a death is $1,000,000. This is not saying that I am indifferent between having my wife and $1,000,000, nor that my wife is indifferent between living and me having an additional $1,000,000 But we observe all sorts of cases where my wife takes risks of death, and this gives the driver the right incentive to change his behavior.

Extensions of the Model Risk Adjustment How should damages be computed?

Extensions of the Model Risk Adjustment How should damages be computed? Standard economic theory is that damages should be computed to make someone whole. –That is, they should be restored to the same indifference curve.

Extensions of the Model Risk Adjustment How should damages be computed? Standard economic theory is that damages should be computed to make someone whole. –That is, they should be restored to the same indifference curve. While messy computationally, it is simple economics.

Extensions of the Model End ©2004 Charles W. Upton