Negligence as Failure to Take Some Cost-Justified Precaution

  • Satish Kumar Jain


The notion of negligence is usually defined in terms of shortfall from the due care. There is, however, another notion of negligence under which a party is adjudged to be negligent iff there exists a cost-justified precaution which could have been taken but was not taken. That is to say, a party is deemed to be negligent iff it can be shown that the party could have averted some harm by taking care which would have cost less than the loss due to harm. These two notions of negligence are logically independent of each other. This chapter investigates the efficiency of liability rules when negligence is defined in terms of existence of cost-justified untaken precautions rather than in terms of shortfall from the due care. It is shown that if negligence is defined in terms of existence of cost-justified untaken precautions, then there is no liability rule which is efficient.


Nash Equilibrium Maximal Element Care Level Optimal Care Strict Liability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Grady, Mark F. 1983. A new positive theory of negligence. Yale Law Journal 92: 799–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grady, Mark F. 1984. Proximate cause and the law of negligence. Iowa Law Review 69: 363–449.Google Scholar
  3. Grady, Mark F. 1989. Untaken precautions. Journal of Legal Studies 18: 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jain, Satish K. 2006. Efficiency of liability rules: A reconsideration. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 15: 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satish Kumar Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Economic Studies and PlanningJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations