Judgment Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies
Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci and
Gerrit De Geest
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 2005, vol. 161, issue 1, 38-56
This study shows that the effects of judgment proofness on precaution depend on whether the injurer can reduce the probability of the accident, the magnitude of the harm, or both. Different legal solutions to the problem are examined: punitive damages, average compensation, undercompensation, accurate compensation, and negligence. We find that when the injurer can only reduce the probability of the accident, negligence with average compensation is the best solution, but negligence with perfectly compensatory damages is the desirable solution if the injurer can only or also affect the magnitude of the harm.
JEL-codes: K13 K32 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (29) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/judgment-pr ... 16280932456054254470 (text/html)
Fulltext access is included for subscribers to the printed version.
Working Paper: Judgement Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies (2003)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(200503)161:1_38:jpufdp_2.0.tx_2-e
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, P.O.Box 2040, 72010 Tübingen, Germany
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) is currently edited by Gerd Mühlheußer and Bayer, Ralph-C
More articles in Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) from Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Thomas Wolpert ().