Should Tort Damages be Multiplied?
Keith N. Hylton and
Thomas Miceli
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2005, vol. 21, issue 2, 388-416
Abstract:
The notion that damages should be multiplied by the reciprocal of the probability of punishment is one of the basic lessons of the law and economics literature. However, the simple "1/p " multiplier turns out be inapplicable in the civil damages setting. The multiplier that brings about first-best deterrence must be chosen by striking a balance between the supply of lawsuits and the need to internalize costs. Moreover, given the costs of litigation, a multiplier that minimizes overall social costs (in contrast to achieving first-best deterrence) may need to be set at a level that effectively bars many claims. This article derives optimal damage multipliers for a costly civil litigation system and examines the conflicting implications of deterrence and social cost minimization as objectives in the design of an optimal multiplier. An empirical application suggests that the first-best deterrence multiplier for the tort system is roughly equal to two. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.
Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)
Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewi017 (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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:21:y:2005:i:2:p:388-416
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals
Access Statistics for this article
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization is currently edited by Andrea Prat
More articles in The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().