Should Victims of Exposure to a Toxic Substance Have an Independent Claim for Medical Monitoring?

Thomas Miceli and Kathleen Segerson ()

No 2002-41, Working papers from University of Connecticut, Department of Economics

Abstract: Traditional tort law does not allow a victim of exposure to a toxic substance to seek damages without evidence of actual loss. Given the difficulty of collecting damages after a long latency period, however, we examine the desirability of granting exposure victims an independent cause of action for medical monitoring at the time of exposure. We show that such a cause of action is not necessary to induce victims to invest in efficient monitoring. It can, however, increase incentives for injurer care, but only at the cost of greater litigation costs. The general reluctance of courts to adopt a cause of action reflects their recognition of this trade-off.

Pages: 22 pages
Date: 2001-07, Revised 2002-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2002-41.pdf Full text (application/pdf)

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:uct:uconnp:2002-41

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working papers from University of Connecticut, Department of Economics University of Connecticut 365 Fairfield Way, Unit 1063 Storrs, CT 06269-1063. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Mark McConnel ().