All-or-Nothing versus Proportionate Damages

Shmuel Leshem and Geoffrey P. Miller

Journal of Legal Studies, 2009, vol. 38, issue 2, pages 345-382

Abstract: This paper considers the choice between an all-or-nothing (AON) rule and a proportionate-damages (PD) rule in civil litigation. Under AON, a prevailing plaintiff receives a judgment equal to his entire damages. Under PD, damages are reduced to reflect uncertainty. For example, if the trier of fact finds that there is a 75 percent chance that the defendant is liable, the judgment would equal 75 percent of the plaintiff's damages. Using a moral hazard model that takes into account defendants' decisions to comply with legal rules, evidentiary uncertainty, and settlement, we show that AON usually maximizes the rate of compliance, although it may result in a higher level of litigation. This, in turn, provides an efficiency rationale for the ubiquity of AON in the legal system. (c) 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved..

Date: 2009

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/593153 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:38:y:2009:i:2:p:345-382

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/order1.html

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Legal Studies is edited by Eric A. Posner and Thomas J. Miles

More articles in Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Address: The University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005 Chicago, IL 60637
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().