Excessive spending by firms to avoid accidents: Is it a concern in practice?

Klaas van 't Veld () and Emma Hutchinson

International Review of Law and Economics, 2009, vol. 29, issue 4, 324-335

Abstract: Shavell's [Shavell, S. (1986). The judgment proof problem. International Review of Law and Economics, 6, 45-58] original model of the judgment proof problem treats costs of care to prevent accidents as non-monetary. Noting that this is unrealistic when injurers are firms, several authors have found that with monetary care costs, some judgment-proof firms perversely take excess rather than insufficient care. In this paper, we make explicit the quite specific assumptions required for the excess-care result to arise even in theory, and demonstrate that, even under these assumptions, the result is likely to be quantitatively unimportant. We also suggest an alternative model that, while treating care costs as monetary, avoids the excess-care result.

Keywords: Judgment; proof; problem; Strict; liability; Industrial; accidents; Bankruptcy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144-8188(09)00040-4
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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:eee:irlaec:v:29:y:2009:i:4:p:324-335

Access Statistics for this article

International Review of Law and Economics is currently edited by C. Ott, A. W. Katz and H-B. Schäfer

More articles in International Review of Law and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().