Judgement Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies

Guiseppe Dari Mattiaci and G.G.A. de Geest
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci

No 03-16, Working Papers from Utrecht School of Economics

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: insolvency; judgment proof; liability; bankruptcy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2003-11
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/309410/03_16.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Judgment Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies (2005)
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:use:tkiwps:0316

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Utrecht School of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Marina Muilwijk ().