Uncertainty Regarding Interpretation of the “Negligence Rule” and Its Implications for the Efficiency of Outcomes

Satish Jain

Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 2016, vol. 7, issue 2, 147-168

Abstract: There are two ways that the negligence rule is interpreted. Under one interpretation a negligent injurer is liable for the entire harm to the victim; and under the other interpretation a negligent injurer is liable only for that part of the harm which can be ascribed to his negligence. Both these versions are efficient. However, if there is uncertainty regarding whether the court will be employing the full liability version or the incremental liability version for determining the liability of a negligent injurer, notwithstanding the fact that both the versions are efficient, inefficiency is possible. It is shown in the paper that a necessary and sufficient condition for efficiency in all cases is that the subjective probability with which the injurer expects the standard version to be employed must be greater than or equal to the subjective probability with which the victim expects the standard version to be employed. For the subset of applications without complementarities in the cares of the two parties and which are such that the total social costs are minimized at a unique care-configuration, it is shown that efficiency obtains regardless of the subjective probabilities with which the parties expect the two versions. One very important conclusion that emerges from the analysis of this paper is that when courts employ more than one liability rule, even if all the employed rules are efficient, the efficiency of all outcomes cannot be taken for granted merely on the ground of the efficiency of the employed rules.

Keywords: full liability; incremental liability; incremental version; necessary and sufficient conditions for efficiency; negligence rule; standard version; uncertainty regarding interpretation of negligence rule (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: K13 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2015-0031 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:7:y:2016:i:2:p:147-168:n:5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ajle/html

DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2015-0031

Access Statistics for this article

Asian Journal of Law and Economics is currently edited by Noriyuki Yanagawa

More articles in Asian Journal of Law and Economics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().