Expert opinion in a tort litigation game

Yves Oytana and Nathalie Chappe ()
Additional contact information
Nathalie Chappe: CRESE - Centre de REcherches sur les Stratégies Economiques (UR 3190) - UFC - Université de Franche-Comté - UBFC - Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE]

Working Papers from HAL

Abstract: We investigate the potential impact of various proposed reforms intended to improve the quality of expert testimony while reducing its cost, and to facilitate the work of judges in appointing experts and reading their reports. To do so, we present a unilateral care model under strict liability in which the court cannot perfectly observe the amount of harm a tortfeasor has caused to a victim. However, the judge may appoint an expert to improve his chance of reaching a correct decision. In this context, we find that the likelihood of a victim filing a lawsuit decreases with the quality of the expert testimony and with the cost of the expertise procedure, and increases with the non-monetary cost for the judge to appoint an expert. Moreover, we find that the e↵ects of these parameters on the injurer's level of precaution are ambiguous. We also find that the injurer's level of care is suboptimal. Finally, we make some public policy recommendations in order to (i) increase the injurer's level of care and (ii) reduce the expected cost of a trial in the event of an accident. We find that the policy maker faces a trade-o↵ between these two objectives.

Keywords: Litigation; Expert; Expert testimony; Liability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016-11-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01413908v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-01413908v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Expert opinion in a tort litigation game (2018)
Working Paper: Expert opinion in a tort litigation game (2016)
Working Paper: Expert opinion in a tort litigation game (2016)
Working Paper: Expert opinion in a tort litigation game (2016)
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:hal:wpaper:hal-01413908

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().