Efficient liability law when parties genuinely disagree
Luigi Alberto Franzoni
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2024, vol. 40, issue 2, 416-433
Abstract:
This article compares the classic liability rules, negligence, and strict liability, under the hypothesis that injurers and victims formulate subjective beliefs about the probabilities of harm. Parties may reasonably disagree in their assessment of the precautionary measures available: a measure regarded as safe by one party may be regarded as not safe by the other. By relying on the notions of Pareto efficiency and “No Betting” Pareto efficiency, the article shows that negligence is the optimal liability rule when injurers believe that the probability of harm is always higher than the victims do, while strict liability with overcompensatory damages is the optimal rule in the opposite case. The same results apply to bilateral accidents and, specifically, to product-related harms in competitive markets. Overcompensatory (“punitive”) damages provide consumers with insurance against their own pessimism. (JEL K13, D83, D62)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewac022 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Related works:
Working Paper: Efficient liability law when parties genuinely disagree (2022) 
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:40:y:2024:i:2:p:416-433.
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 ().