Torts
Short Description
Download Torts...
Description
Tort – injury to person or property We are interested in unintentional torts, inadvertent accidents. Injuries sustained by breach of contract are covered under contract law
A court imposed obligation on the tortfeasor to pay for a victim’s losses.
There are situations in which the transaction costs between potential injurers and potential victims are so high that they cannot bargain about liability prior to an accident.
Elements Breach of a preexisting duty of care No contract exists between the victim and the injurer
How can we affect pre-accident behavior when victim and injurer cannot assign liability by contract?
Economic Analysis of Tort Liability
10
Cost of injuries Cost of precaution Cost of administration Indirect costs to economy
An efficient system would internalize externalities and provide incentives for efficient precaution and activity
Precaution is a function of the resources devoted to avoiding potential harm
Activity is a function of the volume or frequency of risky behavior
Breach of Duty - The defendant’s act or failure to act must constitute the breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant 2. Harm - The plaintiff must have suffered a harm 3. Cause - The defendant’s act or failure to act must cause the harm 1.
Two possible rules Strict liability rule - only harm and cause are required for a tort any harm is a breach of due care
Negligence rule - requires a minimum duty of care
A legal standard prescribing the minimum acceptable level of precaution Violation of the due care standard represents negligence Under strict liability any harm violates due care standard
Due care standard is based upon a reasonable person
There typically must be an actual harm. Liability law does not compensate for exposure to risk A pollutant that reduces property values may result in an actual harm, but the future risk of illness is not an actual harm
Perfect compensation would compensate for both property losses and intangible harm.
Should reimbursement occur for intangible harms? How do we determine the value of intangible harms? (The death of a child.)
“But for” test (cause in fact) Problem when there are multiple causes (ambiguous causation) Ex., Medical malpractice cases
Proximity in the law is imprecise “But for” test does not distinguish between proximate causes and remote causes Proximate cause satisfies the “but for” test and is sufficiently direct to be the determined the legal cause of the injury
Plaintiff was standing on the platform when another passenger was having some difficulty boarding a train. While a LIRR guard helped him onto the train a package he was holding became dislodged and fell on the platform. The package contained fireworks which exploded. The explosion toppled a scale which struck the plaintiff “The conduct of the defendant's guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. “
Cost of injuries Cost of precaution Cost of administration Indirect costs to economy
An efficient system would internalize externalities and provide incentives for efficient precaution and activity
Precaution is a function of the resources devoted to avoiding potential harm
Activity is a function of the volume or frequency of risky behavior
We will assume only cost of injury and cost of precaution x = unit of precaution w = cost of a unit of precaution A = monetary value of the harm p(x) = probability of harm
SC wx p ( x) A SC w p( x) A 0 x w p( x) A p( x) 0, p( x) 0 marginal cost of precaution marginal cost of expected harm
$
p(x)A = Expected Accident costs
x = Amount of precaution
$
wx = precaution cost
p(x)A = Expected Accident costs
x = Amount of precaution
$
Total Cost = p(x)A + wx
wx = precaution cost
p(x)A = Expected Accident costs
x = Amount of precaution
$
Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution
Total Cost = p(x)A + wx
wx = precaution cost
p(x)A = Expected Accident costs
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Marginal Costs $
Rate at which Accident costs decrease
x = Amount of precaution
Marginal Costs
w
Marginal cost of precaution Rate at which Accident costs decrease
x = Amount of precaution
Marginal Costs
Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution
w
Marginal cost of precaution Rate at which Accident costs decrease
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Unilateral precaution Only the injurer or only the victim can influence the probability or severity of injury
Bilateral precaution Both the injurer and the victim can influence the probability or severity of injury
Injurer is liable for all harm Precaution does not reduce or eliminate liability The opposite of strict liability is no liability
Strict liability with perfect compensatory damages gives the victim no incentive to take precaution No liability gives the injurer no incentive to take precaution
Appropriate when only unilateral precaution by the injurer is possible
Injurer has incentive to minimize total social cost Assumes costs can be accurately measured and injurer will be found liable for all harms he caused
Strict Liability Appropriate when only unilateral precaution by the injurer is possible Injurer has incentive to minimize total social cost Assumes costs can be accurately measured by injurer Injurer internalizes cost of injury
No liability Appropriate when only unilateral precaution by the victim is possible Victim has incentive to minimize total social cost Assumes costs can be accurately measured by victim Victim internalizes cost of injury
Should airlines be strictly liable for crashes? Should manufacturers be strictly responsible for consumer injury? Defective products
Defect in design Defect in manufacture Defect in warning
Knives, Guns, Toasters
When bilateral precaution is possible neither strict liability or no liability causes both the victim and the injurer to take the optimal level of precaution.
The party who does not internalize the harm will not take adequate precaution.
Negligence may be the preferred rule when bilateral precaution is possible .
Simple negligence: Injurer is liable only if precaution is less than due care standard; otherwise victim is liable Negligence rule with perfect compensation and the legal standard set to the efficient level of care gives the injurer and victim incentives for efficient precaution.
Injurer has incentive to satisfy the due care standard Victim responds as if there is no liability, therefore victim has efficient incentive for precaution
Total Costs Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution DCS
Total Costs wx = precaution cost
Expected Accident costs
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Total Costs Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution DCS
Total Costs wx = precaution cost
Expected Accident costs
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Total Costs Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution DCS
Total Costs wx = precaution cost
Expected Accident costs
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Total Costs Minimum = Efficient amount of precaution DCS
Total Costs wx = precaution cost
Expected Accident costs
x*
x = Amount of precaution
Negligence rules give the victim and the injurer efficient incentives for precaution Negligence rule is preferred when there is bilateral precaution
Simple negligence 2. Negligence with defense of contributory negligence 3. Comparative negligence 4. Strict liability with defense of contributory negligence 1.
Activity - repeated risky behavior
The more you drive, the more likely that you will have an accident
Expected harm is a function of activity, harm and precaution The more we engage in risky behaviors, the greater is the expected harm The less precaution we take, the greater is the expected harm
Strict liability forces the injurer to internalize the harm related to activity, negligence does not.
With simple negligence the carnival operator is relieved of all liability as long as he adheres to the due care standard. Even with inspections, mishaps can occur, passengers can be injured. Riders put their set belts on because they can’t be sure the ride is safe. They will make sure restraints are functioning and will keep their hands and feet in. There is no incentive for the carnival operator to limit the passengers on the ride or the number of carnivals. Result
Optimal precaution, but too much activity With strict liability the number of riders would be less but there would be no incentive for the riders to take due care
Assume driver is only liable if he is negligent If he is not negligent, damages are not related to the number of trucks on the road The number of accidents is positively related to the number of trucks on the road Increased probability that you will be in an accident with a truck With strict liability the trucking company has both an incentive for taking precaution and limiting mileage. The victim has no incentive for precaution or limiting activity.
Under a negligence rule the marginal risk of harm to others by engaging in the activity is externalized. Under strict liability, the social cost of accidents is internalized. Induces efficient precaution and efficient activity by injurers. The party who escapes bearing the cost has an incentive for an inefficient activity level. Efficiency requires choosing a liability rule so that the party whose activity level most affects accidents bears the residual cost of accidental harm. Liability rules cannot provide an efficient incentive for bilateral activity levels
United States v. Carroll Towing Co., (2d Cir. 1947)
Defendant hired to move barge The mooring lines were not correctly adjusted A barge broke loose and sank The tug owner argued that barge owner was also negligent because there was no bargee
“Since there are occasions when every vessel will break from her moorings, and since, if she does, she becomes a menace to those about her; the owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables:
(1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions.”
… in algebraic terms: if the probability is P; the injury, L; and the burden (cost), B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B less than PL. If B
View more...
Comments
